Re: Results of survey re. a new array size operator

On 2025-01-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

On 2025-01-24, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
You can define
>
 #define arraysize (x) (sizeof (x) / sizeof ((x)[0))

>
You can, but you don't need to.

The repetition in things like:

  sizeof foo->bar.buf / *sizeof foo->bar.buf

is just irksome. Why do I have to say that thing twice,
to get its number of elements?

Often readability suffers
when you use macros, not to mention the other quirks of
C macro use (in C++, a constexpr function might be
suitable, but the naming being arbitrary (e.g. arraysize,
NUM_ELEMENTS, SIZE, et alia) doesn't aid in readability
or maintainability.

The naming being arbitrary is the argument for standardizing the name
for the macro and sticking it into, for instance, <stddef.h>.

If we didn't have offsetof there, we might have to deal with
OFFSETOF, offsetof, offset, member_offset, and others.

The containerof name for a popular macro seems to be a de facto
standard, luckily.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca