Re: Coding style RFC: convert "for (i=0;i<ARRAY_SIZE(array);i++)" to "array_for_each(index, array)"

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:42 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Joe Perches wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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()?
>
>
> That depends on the decision between consistency to array_for_each_index
> or consistency to list_for_each.

I don't follow.

list_for_each gives you a list_head.
list_for_each_entry gives you a pointer to an entry in the list, which
is equivalent to the above loop which gives a pointer to an entry in the
array. Accordingly, it should be called array_for_each_entry. What sort
of logic leads to another conclusion?

array_for_each_index gives an index into the array.

I offer no opinion on the merit of such macros, just their names.

--
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/