Re: [PATCH 03/28] tests/qapi-schema: Rework comments on longhand member definitions

[John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>]

On 3/23/21 9:58 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/23/21 8:00 AM, John Snow wrote:
>> On 3/23/21 5:40 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> +# event 'data' member with dict value is (longhand) argument
>>> +# definition, not inline complex type
>>
>> I have to be a weenie and say I don't know exactly what this comment is
>> telling me.
>>
>> (1) What's a longhand argument?
> 
> Writing { 'type':'str', 'name':'foo' } is longhand for the corresponding
> 'foo':'str' shorthand.
> 

Ah, okay. The canonical object/dict form of a member definition.

>> (2) What's an inline complex type?
> 
> Writing { 'command':'Foo', 'returns': { 'foo':'str' } }
> or { 'union':'U', 'base': { 'foo':'Enum' } ... }
> 
> are inline complex types; they are shorthand for:
> 
> { 'struct':'FooReturn', 'data': { 'foo':'str' } }
> { 'struct':'UBase', 'data': { 'foo':'Enum' } }
> { 'command':'Foo', 'returns':'FooReturn'  }
> { 'union':'U', 'base':'UBase' }
> 
> At one point, I had the idea that we might want to write:
> 
> { 'union':'U', ...
>    'data': { 'branch': { inline type } } }
> 
> instead of having to pre-declare the type for the branch; but that idea
> is no longer feasible, since it would be awkward to distinguish from
> what we DO have of:
> 
> { 'union':'U', ...
>    'data': { 'branch': { 'type':'Branch', 'if': 'COND' } } }
> 
> and where I don't really see us wanting:
> 
> { 'union':U', ...
>    'data': { 'branch': { 'type': { inline type }, 'if': 'COND' } } }
> 
> (If the situation changes and we do want anonymous inline types anywhere
> a name can appear now, we'll have more work to do)
> 

I see, ok, thanks!