In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it's not a reset thing. I should have documented it better, though i > thought the wod "initial" would tell it ;-) Well I was thinking of it as initial allocation versus reallocation. > The intlist structure is a little bit special, the first chunk - and > after shift/unshift maybe another entry - is the head of the list, which > carries additional information: Before my patch only the length of the > list, and now additionally e.g. the junk_list member. > > This head chunk or "the list" is the parameter for the intlist > functions, in case of shift/unshift you pass an address, because the > head might move. > > The "intial" parameter now constructs such an head entry, is it 0, then > a "normal" entry is allocated. So it's an implementation detail that doesn't need to be exposed outside of the intlist code and therefore probably shouldn't be ;-) Seriously, I'd suggest putting the common code into intlist_new_chunk or something and then have intlist_new call that before doing the other setup. That way you don't need the extra argument. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/
