Re: [Libguestfs] [libnbd PATCH v2 4/8] python: Reformat generated methods.c in a few places

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:00:08AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:08:29PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > > + pr ":nbd_%s\",\n" name; > > You could put this pr (but without the \n) ... > > > + pr " "; > > + pr_wrap ',' (fun () -> > > ... inside pr_wrap here, and it would mean you wouldn't need to print > spaces to indent (because pr_wrap should do it for you). Will do. It rearranges a few more lines of generated code (now the &py_h argument can sometimes be a line earlier), but is still legible. > > It all looks sensible and equivalent to the old code, and the output > is cleaner too, so: > > Reviewed-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; > I get when we have more than one statement to bundle how the OCaml (fun () -> ... ) construct makes sense, but do we need that for this hunk? > @@ -284,7 +285,10 @@ let > (* Generate the Python binding. *) > let print_python_binding name { args; optargs; ret; may_set_error } = > pr "PyObject *\n"; > - pr "nbd_internal_py_%s (PyObject *self, PyObject *args)\n" name; > + pr "nbd_internal_py_%s (" name; > + pr_wrap ',' (fun () -> > + pr "PyObject *self, PyObject *args"); > + pr ")\n"; > pr "{\n"; > pr " PyObject *py_h;\n"; > pr " struct nbd_handle *h;\n"; or is there a shorter way to write that one?