Subject: Re: 1. uiopeek? 2. hashinit/hashdone?
To: None <tech-kern@NetBSD.org>
From: Chapman Flack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/04/2006 21:28:03
> Any documentation is better than no documentation, as long as you are
> concious of the fact that by documenting internal parts of the
> interface, you are extending the contract.
I think it would help me to see examples of the points in which you
think I have extended the contract. I've already mentioned the things
I think are inherent to any hashtable contract, that if they are
unanswered force anyone to read the code just to decide whether to use
it at all. But I see a couple of places where I exposed unnecessarily.
One I already mentioned, in saying that malloc is actually used rather
than saying only the two arguments are as used by malloc. Der Mouse
just pointed out a less niggling one, that perhaps I should say the
hashdone-non-empty behavior is undefined (with the usual menacing
undertone on undefined) rather than actually saying it's unchecked.
That strikes me as a worthwhile improvement. Have you spotted more?