Coccinelle:
@@
expression a, b;
@@
-a ? a : b
+a ?: b
Applied with:
spatch --sp-file ternary.cocci --in-place --smpl-spacing --dir .
With some manual adjustments on spots that Cocci didn't catch for
reasons unknown.
Thanks to the marvelous effort of the GNU compiler developer we can now
spare a couple of bits that could be used for more important things,
like this commit message. Standards commitees yet have to catch up.
Do not have multiple ways of expressing a certain thing. There is
a way how to express that the parser shouldn't check for keys, and
that is via the parse-information. No extra hacks.
Rework this to have a value "parser_no_check_key" so that:
- the default value for this is FALSE, so that we don't need to
explicitly set it in @parse_infos to only get the default.
Contrary to check_for_key.
- check_for_key only had meaning when also "parser" was set.
That means, the value was really "pip->parser && pip->check_for_key".
That came from the fact, that orginally this was tracked as
key_parsers array, which had "parser" always set.
That is confusing, don't do that. The field "parser_no_check_key"
has it's meaning, regardless of whether "parser" is set.
Splitting keyfile handling in two "reader.c" and "writer.c" files
is not helpful. What is most interesting, is to see how property XYZ
is serialized to keyfile, and to verify that the parser does the
inverse. For that, it's easier if both the write_xzy() and parse_xyz()
function are beside each other, and not split accross files.
The more important reason is, that both reader and writer have their
separate handler arrays, for special handling of certain properties:
@key_parsers and @key_writers. These two should not be separate but will
be merged. Since they reference static functions, these functions must
all be in the same source file (unless, we put them into headers, which
would be unnecessary complex).
No code was changed, only moved.
