On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:51:57PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

quoted

I think wrapping this kind of hackery is worth doing.

You'd be able to use put() as usual, wouldn't you? It never deallocates
the util field, but just returns the old one. And the caller knows that
it's really an int, and shouldn't be deallocated.

You can use put() as normal, if you don't mind the need to explicitly
throw in a typecast when you use it.  In fact, strintmap_set() does no
more than typecasting the int to void* and otherwise calling
strmap_put().

Yeah, I think hiding the type-casting is worth it alone. I was just
confused by your remark.

I initially called that strintmap_put(), but got confused once or
twice and looked up the function definition to make sure there wasn't
some deallocation I needed to handle.  After that, I decided to just
rename to _set() because I thought it'd reduce the chance of myself or
others wondering about that in the future.

Yeah, I'd agree that is a much better name. Since there's an "incr",
having a specific "set" makes it clear that we're overwriting.

quoted

  struct strintmap {
          struct strmap strmap;
  };

[...]
I like this idea and the extra safety it provides.  Most of strintmap
is static inline functions anyway, adding a few more wouldn't hurt.

OK. Then I guess we can't cheat our way out of picking a name with
strmap_getint(). :)

-Peff