Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I disagree with some part of the presenter's ideas. I learned struct initializers and _Generic keyword from the presentation. So that is a great win for me. Now I can write safer code with the const and non-const pointer types. Suppose that I want to return a pointer to a field inside of a struct. Either I had to write const and non-const versions of the same function and use them which brings unreadable cod…
I just noticed your comment and I'm intrigued. Can you explain more or give a tiny example of this const/non-const flexibility?
struct my_struct{int a; char private[10];}
void * get_struct_field_nonconst(struct my_struct *ptr)
{ return &(ptr->private[0]); }
With these elements you are only allowed to give non-const pointers to read or write inside private field.
In order to truly apply this to const pointers (no casting etc.) you will need another get_struct_field() function but defined as this. const void * get_struct_field_const(const struct my_struct *ptr)
{ return &(ptr->private[0]); }
This will work but it is ugly. Here _Generic keyword allows you to write these functions but use them with a common name. Such as get_struct_field(). And that would be something like this: #define get_struct_field(ptr) \
_Generic((ptr), \
const struct my_struct * : get_struct_field_const, \
struct my_struct * : get_struct_field_nonconst) \
(ptr)
Hope this would help!