Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:58:40PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>
>> >> for (... {
>> >> if (... {
>> >> ...
>> >> }
>> >> last = &p->next;
>> >> }
>> [...]
>> I feel like bikeshedding a bit today!
>>
>> I tend to either prefer either the latter or something like this:
>>
>> while (p) {
>> ...
>>
>> last = p;
>> p = p->next;
>> }
>>
>> because those approaches put all the iteration logic in the same
>> place. The in-body traversal approach is a bit more explicit about the
>> traversal details.
>
> Also fine by me.
>
>> And to conclude my bikeshedding for the day: Shouldn't "last" ideally
>> be called something like "prev" instead? It's the previously visited
>> element, not the last element in the list.
>
> It is the "last" element visited (just as "last week" is not the end of
> the world), but yes, it is ambiguous, and "prev" is not. Either is fine
> by me.
OK, so who's gonna do the honors?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
