From owner-freebsd-current Fri Mar 13 10:08:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11497 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:08:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pluto.plutotech.com (mail.plutotech.com [206.168.67.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11455 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:08:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gibbs@plutotech.com) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by pluto.plutotech.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA15797; Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:08:41 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199803131808.LAA15797@pluto.plutotech.com> To: Damon Permezel cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A question about sys/sys/queue.h Newsgroups: pluto.freebsd.current In-Reply-To: <199803131728.LAA07600@damon.com> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:05:32 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <199803131728.LAA07600@damon.com> you wrote: > "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. Actually, inline functions will not work for the queue macros unless you change the way you specify the "links" portion of the object. I agree that, in general, using an inline is better than using a macro. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message