Update README

README.md

@@ -898,6 +898,7 @@ Each can be classified into one of the following concept:
 
 * Each object is handled through a pointer to void (with potential registered callbacks to handle the contained objects for the specialized methods). From a user point of view, this makes the code harder to use (as you don't have any help from the compiler) and type unsafe with a lot of cast (so no formal proof of the code is possible). This also generally generate slower code (even if using link time optimization, this penalty can be reduced). Properly used, it can yet be the most space efficient for the code, but can consume a lot more for the data due to the obligation of using pointers. This is however the easiest to design & code.
 * Macros are used to access structures in a generic way (using known fields of a structure - typically size, number, etc.). From a user point of view, this can create subtitle bug in the use of the library (as everything is done through macro expansion in the user defined code) or hard to understand warnings. This can generates fully efficient code. From a library developer point of view, this can be quite limiting in what you can offer.
+* Macros detect the type of the argument passed as parameter using _Generics, and calls the associated methods of the switch. The difficulty is how to add pure user types in this generic switch.
 * A known structure is put in an intrusive way in the type of all the objects you wan to handle. From a user point of view, he needs to modify its structure and has to perform all the allocation & deallocation code itself (which is good or bad depending on the context). This can generate efficient code (both in speed and size). From a library developer point of view, this is easy to design & code. You need internally a cast to go from a pointer to the known structure to the pointed object (a reverse of offsetof) that is generally type unsafe (except if mixed with the macro generating concept). This is quite limitation in what you can do: you can't move your objects so any container that has to move some objects is out-of-question (which means that you cannot use the most efficient container).
 * Header files are included multiple times with different contexts (some different values given to defined macros) in order to generate different code for each type. From a user point of view, this creates a new step before using the container: an instantiating stage that has to be done once per type and per compilation unit (The user is responsible to create only one instance of the container, which can be troublesome if the library doesn't handle proper prefix for its naming convention). The debug of the library is generally easy and can generate fully specialized & efficient code. Incorrectly used, this can generate a lot of code bloat. Properly used, this can even create smaller code than the void pointer variant. The interface used to configure the library can be quite tiresome in case of a lot of specialized methods to configure: it doesn't enable to chain the configuration from a container to another one easily. It also cannot have heavy customization of the code.
 * Macros are used to generate context-dependent C code enabling to generate code for different type. This is pretty much like the headers solution but with added flexibility. From a user point of view, this creates a new step before using the container: an instantiating stage that has to be done once per type and per compilation unit (The user is responsible to create only one instance of the container, which can be troublesome if the library doesn't handle proper prefix for its naming convention). This can generate fully specialized & efficient code. Incorrectly used, this can generate a lot of code bloat. Properly used, this can even create smaller code than the void pointer variant. From a library developer point of view, the library is harder to design and to debug: everything being expanded in one line, you can't step in the library (there is however a solution to overcome this limitation by adding another stage to the compilation process). You can however see the generated code by looking at the preprocessed file. You can perform heavy context-dependent customization of the code (transforming the macro preprocessing step into its own language). Properly done, you can also chain the methods from a container to another one easily, enabling expansion of the library. Errors within the macro expansion are generally hard to decipher, but errors in code using containers are easy to read and natural.