Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:33:53 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: phk@dk.tfs.com Cc: dg@root.com, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970417133202.4123N-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <1179.860742776@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 phk@dk.tfs.com wrote: > > > Actually it was Poul-Henning who added those and I don't recall > >agreeing that I liked it. In fact, I recall thinking that it was > >completely unnecessary, but I don't think I made any comment at the > >time. > > 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 <sys/queue.h> 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. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 951 1891
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970417133202.4123N-100000>