From owner-freebsd-current Fri Mar 13 09:30:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02969 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:30:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from damon.com (+kSgQEoAh8Dn+1PVDWM3C0a/0AjNKVlG@damon.com [207.170.114.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA02948 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:30:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dap@damon.com) Received: (from dap@localhost) by damon.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA07600; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:28:34 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dap) From: Damon Permezel Message-Id: <199803131728.LAA07600@damon.com> Subject: Re: A question about sys/sys/queue.h In-Reply-To: from Simon Shapiro at "Mar 13, 98 09:25:27 am" To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:28:34 -0600 (CST) Cc: dufault@hda.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Simon Shapiro sez: " > > I understand the code works. I was wondering about: > > b. The sanity of writing useless code, knowing it will be thrown out by or > frienfdly, thinking, machine, only to gain a `;' so something looks > like what it is not - I do admit to the somewhat more convineient look > of the sesultant code, although an inline function would have > accomplished the same thing while being semantically saner, but as it > works... This falls into aesthetics, where sanity is not an issue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message