From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 17 05:38:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA28974 for current-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.dk.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA28969; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.dk.tfs.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA00792; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:36:41 +0200 (CEST) To: Doug Rabson cc: phk@dk.tfs.com, dg@root.com, Garrett Wollman , Terry Lambert , current@freebsd.org From: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:33:53 BST." Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:36:41 +0200 Message-ID: <790.861280601@critter> Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message , Do ug Rabson writes: >On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 phk@dk.tfs.com wrote: > >> Indeed, I started it, and I still have a bunch of patches, which I >> promised not to commit until after the LITE2 merge. >> >> I think that is a weird inconsistent mess without them, >> and I see no reason why we would want to hide half of the implementation >> behind macros, but not the other half. >> >> I fully intend to complete the migration btw. > >Will you be adding accessors for the other list types as well? I noticed >that they are only implemented for SLIST and TAILQ. For consistency at >least, there should be accessors for STAILQ, LIST and CIRCLEQ. Yes, but I'm doing this in a stepwise fashion and things take time... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.