Re: [PATCH 1/3] Rename some trace functions

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>]

On 2016-12-02 14:05, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Seems unnecessarily verbose to me when just doing a simple integer
> conversion.  E.g.:
>
>  static_cast<int> (foo) + static_cast<int> (bar) + static_cast<int> 
> (qux)
>
> vs
>
>  (int) foo + (int) bar + (int) qux
>
> I don't think there's a real advantage.

I agree.

> > It might be a good idea to check that the resulting integer is smaller
> > than the array size.  If we ever add new stop reasons, we could forget
> > to add array elements, so an error() here would catch it.
>
> That's highly unlikely, given that if you're adding a new reason,
> you'll need to be able to parse it from RSP, which requires
> get_rsp_name.

It seems enough then.