From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 17 05:34:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA28780 for current-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA28761 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (herring.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.2]) by nlsystems.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26764; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:33:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:33:53 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: phk@dk.tfs.com cc: dg@root.com, Garrett Wollman , Terry Lambert , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... In-Reply-To: <1179.860742776@critter> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 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