Re: [PATCH 1/7] shared subtree

Miklos Szeredi
2005-07-31T08:26:22Z

> > Do you still believe that your idea is simpler?
>
> Well, you have bundled do_make_slave(), pnode_member_to_slave() and
> empty_pnode() all into one function. I think your original split is
> quite nice. If you'd split this function up like that, I think you'd
> agree, that the end result is simpler.

Also you can still use the pnode concept in naming functions and
explanations. For example empty_pnode() is a good function name even
if there's no 'struct pnode'. Pnodes still exist, they just don't
have a corresponding object.

Miklos