Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:29:16 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: <sys/queue.h> bikeshed proposal Message-ID: <20070315182916.GG28354@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <45F97D5F.2010709@elischer.org> References: <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk> <40441.1173778685@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070315134300.GE28354@comp.chem.msu.su> <45F97D5F.2010709@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:07:43AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:05AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>In message <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp > >>writes: > >>>It has always bothered me that some of the TAILQ macros need to > >>>know the struct name of the header type. > > > >Yeah, <sys/queue.h> can present a challenge in understanding an > >implementation of basic data structures and related algos. :-) > >You thought that tqe_prev points to the whole entry structure when > >making the patch, didn't you? > > > >Personally, I cannot explain to myself why in the double-linked > >structs the prev member points to the next member in the previous > >list element and not to the previous list element itself. Could > >anybody with CS education explain merits of the current approach? > >I can only see that now we have to go to the element before the > >previous one for a pointer to the latter. I'm not going to dispute > >the current way of things, just curious. > > kirk can tell you that I believe.. I'm afraid he can but has no time to. In addition, Kirk would be upset by having to deal with a bunch of losers who don't have enough collective knowledge to figure out a basic thing! We seem to be able to prove we aren't such losers. :-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070315182916.GG28354>