From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Apr 11 01:09:15 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA03602
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:09:15 -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 BAA03593;
          Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.dk.tfs.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA01096;
	Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
From: phk@dk.tfs.com
Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:48:44 PDT."
             <199704102248.PAA10021@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:07:48 +0200
Message-ID: <1094.860742468@critter>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199704102248.PAA10021@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes:
>
>On the theory that the TAILQ_xxx macros were being avoided and the
>queue elemments themselves directly refernce for No Good Reason(tm),
>I just compiled the following:

You're way behind Terry!  :-)

I argued this long time ago and started to introduce the _FIRST, _LAST,
_NEXT, _PREV and _EMPTY macros as I have got to it.

A patch for this from you would be most welcome of course.

--
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.