> Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war
>
> From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
> Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 23:59:41 EST
>
>
> There were a few alternatives that we looked at (or rather, David
> implemented, and I ended up rejecting due to various reasons), but they
> all boiled down to "how do we sanely generate min/max functions while at
> the same time forcing people to understand the types in question". Some
> of the intermediate patches had the type in the macro name, ie things
> like "min_uint()" and "min_slong()". The final version (ie the one in
> 2.4.9) was deemed to be the most flexible.
>
Reading the whole (entertaining) thread my question is: couldn't the
min/max change wait until 2.5? It seems to "break" some code and that
should not happen in a "stable" stream?
Martin
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Knoblauch | email: Martin.Knoblauch@TeraPort.de TeraPort GmbH | Phone: +49-89-510857-309 C+ITS | Fax: +49-89-510857-111 http://www.teraport.de | Mobile: +49-170-4904759 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:33 EST