>> >> I was mislead by the "leaf" name the first time I reviewed this; having a >> comment explaining what it does helps, but I still think that it's a pretty >> misleading name. "Leaf," at least to me, implies that it's a leaf of the >> dereference tree, which in this case isn't true unless I'm missing something >> here. I think "direct" is the right term here. You already say that >> dereference leaves are "fully qualified (no wild cards) and direct" -- I >> would just call something potentially with wildcards + direct references >> "not indirect," and then what you're calling "leaf" becomes just "direct." > > > Yes, "leaf" is a crappy name, but I'm not sure I like the distinction > between "direct" and "not indirect" either. A double-negative should be a > positive. I'm all for a better name, I just haven't found one. >
Yeah... I think the underlying problem here is that there are three things, direct, wildcard, and indirect, so "not direct" != "indirect" and "not indirect" != "direct". I don't think it should be a problem, though, since we basically never use "not indirect" in the code anyways. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
