On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:08:43 -0800, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:24:46 +0100, Ruben Pollan <mes...@sindominio.net> wrote: > > Do you like to call them regress? Should I change that? ... > > What about the functions notmuch_*_is_first? Is kind of reversed logic than > > notmuch_*_has_more, the last are true when is not reach the limit but the > > first ones are true when the limit is reached. But I think it make sense > > like > > that.
It doesn't make sense in the case of trying to write a for loop that iterates in the reverse order. The is_first semantic doesn't give you what you want for the loop-control portion of the for loop. > I'd like a more symmetric API here. Anyone have a favorite set of names > for iterating a list in two directions? In some recent coding I needed to implement a new iterator so I had the chance to think about this some more. Here is what I came up with: New function Corresponds to existing function (if any) ------------ ----------------------------------------- move_to_first <implicit in iterator creation> has_next has_more move_to_next advance move_to_last <none> has_previous <none> move_to_previous <none> get get The semantics of those all seem clear enough to me. They provide what's necessary for all three portions of a for loop, (in either direction), and everything pairs nicely. The only downside is that the function names are a bit long in some cases, but I'm willing to live with that until someone comes up with better. Thoughts? -Carl
pgpd5TQL9uGnb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
