Re: Coding style RFC: convert "for (i=0;i<ARRAY_SIZE(array);i++)" to "array_for_each(index, array)"

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:42 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Joe Perches wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>perhaps:
>>>
>>>#define array_for_each(element, array) \
>>>	for ((element) = (array); \
>>>	     (element) < ((array) + ARRAY_SIZE((array))); \
>>>	     (element)++)
>>
>>If you're going for consistency, then shouldn't this be
>>array_for_each_entry()?
> 
> 
> That depends on the decision between consistency to array_for_each_index
> or consistency to list_for_each.

I don't follow.

list_for_each gives you a list_head.
list_for_each_entry gives you a pointer to an entry in the list, which
is equivalent to the above loop which gives a pointer to an entry in the
array. Accordingly, it should be called array_for_each_entry. What sort
of logic leads to another conclusion?

array_for_each_index gives an index into the array.

I offer no opinion on the merit of such macros, just their names.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com