Re: [PATCH][2.5] Single linked lists for Linux, overly complicated v2

[Daniel Phillips]

On Monday 30 September 2002 22:04, Zach Brown wrote:
> but really, I think these are DOA.

No argument there.

> having to define a single magical
> structure member makes these more trouble than they're worth.  I've come
> to prefer wli's 'struct list' approach.  It has the added benefit of
> actually being sanely implementable with shared code, something
> ridiculously low memory setups might appreciate.

Have you tried it in a real program?  I have.  It's not nice to use.
My original response to Bill:

> > How's this look?
> 
> Unfortunately, not good.  You get code like:
> 
>         foo = (struct mylist *) slist_pop((slist *) &somelist->next);
>
> So type safety goes out the window, and you gain some niceness in the
> definition in exchange for ugliness in usage, the wrong tradeoff imho.

Single linked lists are so simple - just write the darn code out in
full.  Yes, the fact that you can't sanely generalize these things shows
that C as a language falls a few cards short of a full deck, but we knew
that.  It makes nice kernels, it does not make art.

-- 
Daniel