On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ian Dowse wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonathan Lemon writes: > >Essentially, this provides a traversal of the tailq that is safe > >from element removal, while being simple to drop in to those sections > >of the code that need updating, as evidenced in the patch below. > > Note that this of course is not "safe from element removal" in > general; it is just safe when you remove any element other than the > next element, whereas TAILQ_FOREACH is safe when you remove any > element other than the current one. For example it would not be > safe to call a callback that could potentially remove arbitrary > elements. > > It may be clearer in this case just to expand the macro in the code > so that it is more obvious what assumptions can be made.
This would be clearer in all case :-). I think even the committer of the FOREACH macros thinks that they shouldn't be used if the list traversal has any surprises. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
