Subject: Re: 1. uiopeek? 2. hashinit/hashdone?
To: None <>
From: Chapman Flack <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/04/2006 21:28:03 wrote:
> 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?