From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp50.i.mail.ru (smtp50.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483BC469719 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 02:19:21 +0300 (MSK) References: <578d97ed-92a0-0154-a244-f94c36f32873@tarantool.org> <20200929050340.hwglcb2s4yyadcjr@tkn_work_nb> From: Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 01:19:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200929050340.hwglcb2s4yyadcjr@tkn_work_nb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 2.X 2/7] module api: export box_key_def_dup List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Turenko Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org On 29.09.2020 07:03, Alexander Turenko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:21:02AM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: >> Thanks for the patch! >> >> See 2 comments below. >> >> On 24.09.2020 19:00, Timur Safin wrote: >>> Exporting `box_key_def_dup` as accessor to the internal `key_def_dup` >> >> 1. Do you really need this method? It looks like it can be done by >> >> old_parts = box_key_def_dump_parts(old_key_def); >> new_key_def = box_key_def_new_ex(old_parts); >> >> So the method seems redundant. > > It is not strictly necessary, however using of box_key_def_dup() would > be less error-prone (no extra allocations) and the resulting code would > be more readable. My vote is for this method if you have no strict > objections. Regarding this one I am not strictly against, but I don't like overloading module API with too many methods, especially with the trivial ones, which can be easily implemented via the others in a few lines.