From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: gitk problems: can't unset "idinlist(...)" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20070721065405.GA9793@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20070721050912.GB20622@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20070721061857.GB29820@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20070721062448.GA8722@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List , Paul Mackerras , Junio C Hamano To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 21 08:54:19 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IC8r3-0003el-RX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:54:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755690AbXGUGyL (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755978AbXGUGyK (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:10 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3183 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753613AbXGUGyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 14575 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2007 06:54:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net with (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 21 Jul 2007 06:54:35 -0000 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:47:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So the difference between your version and mine is that the > > while ((p = *pp) != NULL) I actually like your version better (I like saving for loops for honest-to-god, for-each-element-in-this-list iteration; munging the list in the middle is something that you _should_ call attention to). I just found your patch much harder to verify, because I had to make sure the for/while change was equivalent. So you can blame Junio for writing it wrong in the first place. :) Junio, whatever you apply, please credit Linus; he beat me to the fix and so my patch is completely cribbed from his. :) -Peff