Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:26:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:26:49 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:39860 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:26:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:26:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Oliver Xymoron To: Rik van Riel cc: Linus Torvalds , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] for_each_zone / for_each_pgdat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > Which requires the user to use something like > > > > > > > > for_each_zone(zone) { > > > > ... > > > > } end_zone; > > > Ugh. If we're going to use such ugly things, it would be nice if they were > > do_zone/while_zone instead of being suggestive of a for loop. > > Ummm, it _is_ a for loop. Conceptually, sure, but the underlying macros Linus suggested made it do/while. As the do/while form is the only control structure in C where we have something that looks like an expression after a block, naming it for_ seems terribly incongruous. Naming it do_/while_ would make it slightly less ugly, at least to my eyes, and serve to remind that both parts are essential. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/