I was just entering the conversation because it had to do with car and cdr.
As I have only submitted one patch (a 3 liner) about 6 months ago, I really
couldn't care less which naming convention is used.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Nordell
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:23 PM
> To: AbiWord-dev
> Subject: Re: UT_Pair car and cdr
>
>
> Sean R. Bright wrote:
> >
> > > "car" and "cdr". These TLAs has absolutely no meaning in C++,
> > > not to mention
> > > the fact that they are *completely wrong* to use in a "pair".
> >
> > I beg to differ. A cons in Lisp is effectively a linked list node
>
> What's all this talk about lisp? When did we start to program
> AbiWord in
> Lisp? When did a C++ "pair" become a linked list participant
> only? Did I
> just wake up in another universe?
>
> I don't give a crap about how it's done in Lisp. We're not
> using Lisp, we're
> using C++. I don't care if a car in Lisp is a T-Ford or a list element
> pointer. We're not using Lisp, we're using C++. A list cudder
> might point to
> the moon, I don't give a fsck. We're not using Lisp, we're
> using C++. So
> long as we're using C++ we should follow C++ conventions. Is
> that really so
> hard to understand???
>
> A C++ std::pair is a generic datatype able to hold two
> objects. By the name
> UT_Pair it's obvious that this is to be our template-less XP
> version of a
> C++ std::pair. To assume that the first object is a pointer to a list
> element is so way off the wall that it took me until now to
> understand that
> it apparently is futile to even begin to try to explain
> what's wrong with
> this assumption.
>
> /Mike - please don't cc
>
>
