On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Dave Korn<dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > >> Also, what do you expect the semantics to be? > > Since we don't expect an iterator to return the same bit twice when > iterating in any case, the ideal would be that it shouldn't matter what > happens to bits that the iterator has already passed. > >> In particular, are new bits past the current index iterated over, or >> do you expect to iterate over the bitmap as it existed at the time you >> started iteration? > > That would be an ecumenical matter! Err, I mean ... maybe the best solution > (particularly in terms of preventing future bugs) would be for opening an > iterator to put the bitmap into a read-only mode that causes bitmap_clear_bit > or bitmap_set_bit to fail, and that automatically clears when the iterator > runs off the end?
Heh, that sounds useful. Keep bitmaps forced readonly during iterating over them but be able to actually verify it. Might need some new exit-from-iterating magic though. Richard. > > cheers, > DaveK > >
