| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: linked list rewrite |
| Date: | 2004-03-24 01:30:38 |
| Message-ID: | DB41D0C2-7D32-11D8-8EB3-000A95AB279E@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 23-Mar-04, at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> No, lcons is one of the names that I think we should stick with on
> historical grounds. It's widely used in the backend and it has the
> right connotations for anyone who's ever used Lisp.
I think it has exactly the *wrong* connotations: the name suggests that
it creates a new cons cell (along with the ensuing implications about
performance and the internal implementation of the list), which is no
longer the case.
How about lprepend()? That allows for some symmetric with lappend().
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grace C. Unson | 2004-03-24 01:43:28 | Transaction Isolation Level returned |
| Previous Message | Joan Picanyol | 2004-03-24 01:27:34 | Re: rule as on insert to view with multiple fk referencing the same table |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-24 01:36:16 | Re: dollar quoting and pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Paul Tillotson | 2004-03-24 00:30:21 | where can I get the HTML docs |