Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:41:36 -0500
> > From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I don't get the rationale for renaming STR* into
> > > DEPRECATED_STR*.  Are we going to throw away the code that used
> > > STREQN/STREQ?  If not, I don't see any good reasons to do this, as
> > > renaming the macro doesn't get us any closer to the goal of replacing
> > > them with a simple call to the appropriate str* function.
> > > 
> > > Could you please explain why the renaming is a good idea?
>
> > Note that I'm renaming the _remaining_ STR*s and not all references.
>
>
> I must be dense today, because I still don't get it.
>
> What is the importance of ``remaining'' in this case?  I understand
> that you replaced some of the uses of STR* macros, those that you
> could test on the system(s) you have available to you, with the direct
> call to the str* functions.  I can also understand (although I
> basically disagree, see below) why you don't want to replace those
> uses which you cannot test.  But why does it make sense to rename
> them?  Why not just leave them alone?
>
> What am I missing?

To ensure that future patches don't continue to use these macros.

> I don't think simply replacing the macros with their expansion could
> introduce bugs.  If you don't trust your eyes and hands, perhaps
> Emacs's c-macro-expand command (or some other similar automated tool)
> could help.

(it isn't a question of trusing eyes or hands but accepting that humans 
are falible).   Anyway, so EMACS has an automated tool I'll go through 
with that.  Expect questions ;-)  Do I need to run ETAGS first?

Andrew