Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:19 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
#define array_for_each(element, array) \
for (int __idx = 0; __idx < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); \
__idx++, (element) = &(array[__idx]))
If you really wanted to introduce your loop, then please call it
array_for_each_idx, or something to distinguish it.
perhaps:
#define array_for_each(element, array) \
for ((element) = (array); \
(element) < ((array) + ARRAY_SIZE((array))); \
(element)++)
If you're going for consistency, then shouldn't this be
array_for_each_entry()?
#define array_for_each_index(index, array) \
for ((index) = 0; (index) < ARRAY_SIZE((array)); (index)++)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
