> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > > for (bucket = APR_BUCKET_FIRST(ctx->b);
> > > bucket != e && bucket != APR_BRIGADE_LAST(ctx->b);
> > > bucket = APR_BUCKET_NEXT(bucket)) {
> > > apr_bucket_remove(bucket);
> > > APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(b, bucket);
> > > }
PS: if you *were* going to write it this way, then it would actually be:
for (bucket = APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(ctx->b);
bucket != e && bucket != APR_BRIGADE_SENTINEL(ctx->b);
bucket = APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(ctx->b))
{
apr_bucket_remove(bucket);
APR_BRIGADE_INSERT_TAIL(b, bucket);
}
The second line has to test against the sentinel, not APR_BRIGADE_LAST(),
because otherwise the last bucket in the brigade could never be copied.
The third line has to always use APR_BRIGADE_FIRST(), because after an
iteration of the loop, APR_BUCKET_NEXT(bucket) now points to
APR_BRIGADE_SENTINEL(b) [since bucket is now the last bucket in b], not to
the bucket you really want, which is the one that's now the first bucket
in ctx->b.
I should point out that the above code does one thing that my code does
not: it allows for bucket e to be completely absent from ctx->b. (In
which case ctx->b would be left completely empty at the end of the loop.)
My code assumes that e is guaranteed to be somewhere in brigade ctx->b.
(In which case ctx->b will have at least one bucket (e) left in it at the
end of the loop.)
--Cliff
