On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Andres Freund's message of jue jun 28 14:20:59 -0400 2012: > >> Looks good now? > > The one thing I dislike about this code is the names you've chosen. I > mean, ilist_s_stuff and ilist_d_stuff. I mean, why not just Slist_foo > and Dlist_bar, say? As far as I can tell, you've chosen the "i" prefix > because it's "integrated" or "inline", but this seems to me a rather > irrelevant implementation detail that's of little use to the callers. > > Also, I don't find so great an idea to have everything in a single file. > Is there anything wrong with separating singly and doubly linked lists > each to its own file? Other than you not liking it, I mean. As a > person who spends some time trying to untangle header dependencies, I > would appreciate keeping stuff as lean as possible. However, since > nobody else seems to have commented on this, maybe it's just me.
Well, it's not JUST you. I agree entirely with all of your points. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
