Re: [Libclc-developers] An alternative clc_list approach + an iterator.

[<bo...@me...>]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Iterator:
> 
> clc_begin() and clc_end() looks like functions that begin and end
> something.  Call them clc_atstart() and clc_atend().
> 
> Except, we may want more firsts and nexts and whatever, so maybe the
> iterator functions should start with clc_iter_, not just clc_.
> 
> List:
> 
> I still think the names should either be _new and _delete like in C++
> or _alloc and _free like in C.  Not the mix _new and _free.
> Or neither: _make and _destroy, or something.
> 

I see your point and have seen it all along. It's just that I have one 
more adt up my sleeve which I haven't mentioned at all. This may be the 
time?

The adt is a a general purpose pool. It can be used as e.g. a resource 
pool, where the "resource" is an adt. The pool e.g. can be a pool of 
preallocated clc_list objects. This concept is IMO a very good idea in 
some applications, e.g. high performance multithreaded servers where you 
want to avoid malloc()/free() bottlenecks or if you want to utilize 
available memory better by allocating larger chucks of memory and then 
subdivide it into fixed sizes.

The naming problem arises *if* we allow for custom allocators in 
conjunction with our adt's. Straight malloc/free creation can be named 
alloc/free, using a pool better names could be get/release. I currently 
have no good solution, and that's why I've dodged the issue.

Now you all know my dark secret :-)
-- 
boa