From owner-freebsd-current Sat Apr 12 04:18:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA26439 for current-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pdx1.world.net (pdx1.world.net [192.243.32.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA26432 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:18:30 -0700 (PDT) From: proff@suburbia.net Received: from suburbia.net (suburbia.net [203.4.184.1]) by pdx1.world.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA10836 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 04:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18559 invoked by uid 110); 12 Apr 1997 06:45:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19970412064550.18557.qmail@suburbia.net> Subject: Re: WHY? ...non-use of TAILQ macros... In-Reply-To: <334E7ED4.794BDF32@whistle.com> from Julian Elischer at "Apr 11, 97 11:11:32 am" To: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:45:49 +1000 (EST) Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > > > < said: > > > > >> > kern_lockf.c: while (ltmp = overlap->lf_blkhd.tqh_first) { > > > > >> 2. Because they are unnecessary. > > > > > Well, that begs the question of qhy they are being used in declarations > > > and elsewhere, then, doesn't it? > > > > I never said that the declaration macros were unnecessary. I said > > that macros like TAILQ_FIRST are unnecessary. Some people disagree > > (notably David G. and Justin). > > and me > And me. Either somthing is encapsulated or it is not. It isn't desireable to have internals "leaking out" like this. -- Prof. Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks proff@suburbia.net |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery