Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] qnum: qnum_value_is_equal() function

[Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:53:19PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:49 PM Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:42:47PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:42 AM Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Extract the QNum value comparison logic to a function that takes
> > > > QNumValue* as argument.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h |  1 +
> > > >  qobject/qnum.c          | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > >  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h b/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h
> > > > index 62fbdfda68..0327ecd0f0 100644
> > > > --- a/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h
> > > > +++ b/include/qapi/qmp/qnum.h
> > > > @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ double qnum_get_double(const QNum *qn);
> > > >
> > > >  char *qnum_to_string(QNum *qn);
> > > >
> > > > +bool qnum_value_is_equal(const QNumValue *num_x, const QNumValue
> > *num_y);
> > > >  bool qnum_is_equal(const QObject *x, const QObject *y);
> > > >  void qnum_destroy_obj(QObject *obj);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/qobject/qnum.c b/qobject/qnum.c
> > > > index f80d4efd76..6a0f948b16 100644
> > > > --- a/qobject/qnum.c
> > > > +++ b/qobject/qnum.c
> > > > @@ -207,9 +207,9 @@ char *qnum_to_string(QNum *qn)
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  /**
> > > > - * qnum_is_equal(): Test whether the two QNums are equal
> > > > - * @x: QNum object
> > > > - * @y: QNum object
> > > > + * qnum_value_is_equal(): Test whether two QNumValues are equal
> > > > + * @num_x: QNum value
> > > > + * @num_y: QNum value
> > > >
> > >
> > > val_x: a QNumValue ?
> >
> > Do you mean:
> >   @num_x: a QNumValue
> >
> ?
> >
> > I was not planning to rename the existing num_x/num_y variables.
> >
> >
> Not renaming because that would make some churn? But this is already quite
> confusing, so it's better to use "val" for QNumVal and "num" for QNum I
> guess.
> 
> If you don't want to rename it in the code, may I suggest doing it at the
> declaration side? Not sure it's a better idea.

Yeah, I was not renaming them just to avoid churn.

However, I'm already replacing `qn` variables with `qv` at patch
3/8.  Replacing num_x/num_y with val_x/val_y at qnum_is_equal()
(at patch 3/8 as well) wouldn't hurt too much.

-- 
Eduardo