On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 12:32:04AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
>
> > Oh, yes, I actually want to do s/mem_sys/sms/ aswell, but that can
>
> I'm hoping that includes the foo_mem_sys's that are in the apr_sms_t
> structure? "sms->parent_mem_sys" etc seems both redunant and too much
> typing.
Exactly. Completely agree.
> "sms->parent" would be ideal, but then again "sms->ref" wouldn't
> make much sense
They should be:
->parent
->next_sibling (->next and ->prev might be okay, but I like _sibling on
->prev_sibling there for clarification that this is a tree)
->child
The "ref" concept is wrong. What is really happening is a standard
doubly-linked list. However, it adds an indirection and different
terminology. As a result, a new reader must crawl through a bunch of code
just to say "oh! a doubly-linked list!"
Screw that. Just make it a true doubly-linked list. Keep everybody happy.
Removal is simply:
if (sms->prev_sibling != NULL)
sms->prev_sibling->next_sibling = sms->next_sibling;
if (sms->next_sibling != NULL)
sms->next_sibling->prev_sibling = sms->prev_sibling;
Done. Nothing fancy or complicated, and everybody will know what is going on
upon first glance.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
