Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:07:43 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: <sys/queue.h> bikeshed proposal Message-ID: <45F97D5F.2010709@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20070315134300.GE28354@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk> <40441.1173778685@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070315134300.GE28354@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:05AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <39968.1173776514@critter.freebsd.dk>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >>> It has always bothered me that some of the TAILQ macros need to >>> know the struct name of the header type. > > Yeah, <sys/queue.h> can present a challenge in understanding an > implementation of basic data structures and related algos. :-) > You thought that tqe_prev points to the whole entry structure when > making the patch, didn't you? > > Personally, I cannot explain to myself why in the double-linked > structs the prev member points to the next member in the previous > list element and not to the previous list element itself. Could > anybody with CS education explain merits of the current approach? > I can only see that now we have to go to the element before the > previous one for a pointer to the latter. I'm not going to dispute > the current way of things, just curious. kirk can tell you that I believe.. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45F97D5F.2010709>