Todd C. Miller <todd.mil...@sudo.ws> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:41:05 -0600, "Theo de Raadt" wrote: > > > My questions boil down to: > > > > 1) When are too many APIs too may? (It seems there is some agreement > > already) > > > > 2) Is STAILQ more ubiqitous? (I suspect so) > > STAILQ is supported by: FreeBSD, macOS, NetBSD, Solaris, Linux (via libbsd) > SIMPLEQ is supported by: NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris > > So based on a quick survey, STAILQ is more ubiqitous. > > > 3) Can upstream be convinced to use STAILQ instead? > > Upstream *is* using STAILQ, we're the ones who only support SIMPLEQ. > > Personally, I would rather replace SIMPLEQ with STAILQ in our code, > though I suspect that is not a popular opinion here. When I see > STAILQ I know exactly what it means and it is consistent with the > other macros. I find that the SIMPLEQ naming conveys very little > meaning and I always have to go check to see if it is singly or > doubly linked. Of course, like most things, you get used to the > way things are...
I would be happy wit such unification. Are there any objectors? (finishing this might need to be put off for about a month, tho)
