Re: linked list rewrite
От | Neil Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: linked list rewrite |
Дата | |
Msg-id | DB41D0C2-7D32-11D8-8EB3-000A95AB279E@samurai.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: linked list rewrite (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: linked list rewrite
Re: linked list rewrite |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 23-Mar-04, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > No, lcons is one of the names that I think we should stick with on > historical grounds. It's widely used in the backend and it has the > right connotations for anyone who's ever used Lisp. I think it has exactly the *wrong* connotations: the name suggests that it creates a new cons cell (along with the ensuing implications about performance and the internal implementation of the list), which is no longer the case. How about lprepend()? That allows for some symmetric with lappend(). -Neil
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: