Re: [RFC] Generalized prio_tree, revisited

From: Con Kolivas
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 04:35:31 EST

Werner Almesberger wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:

While not being able to comment on the actual patch I think having a 1 or 0 for different types is not clear.

Yeah, it's not pretty. I also hope this division to be very
transitional, that's why I didn't bother to do anything nicer.

Naming them different struct names would seem to me much more readable.

Struct names ? I'd rather not duplicate everything. Or did you mean
initialization function names, e.g. INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT ?
Or, for just the flag, maybe something like
#define PRIO_TREE_RAW 1

Initialisation function names.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature