On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Andrew Doran wrote:

> Nice addition. My two comments relate to style. Please feel free to  
> brick
> me for that. :)

Ok :-)  (just kidding :-)

> 'specificdata' is a lot of typing and doesn't signify much to me.  
> How about
> 'tag' instead?

Well... again, I tried to modeled this after pthread_{get,set}specific 
(), so that's where the "specificdata" name comes from.  Also, note,  
this is a set of subroutines for other subsystems to use.  Other  
subsystems will provide the simpler, consumer-level APIs that are  
essentially wrappers around these subroutines.  I also feel that "tag"  
is too generic a term for what this is... or at least, not quite  
semantically correct.  "Tag" in my mind is "associate some fixed well- 
known value with an object", e.g. "tag the object as dirty", where  
this is "get the object-specific value corresponding to this key".

>
> There are a few things I would prefer to see shortened for  
> readability, for
> example:
>
> 	specificdata_container_t specdataref_container
> 	-> tag_container_t	tr_container;
>
> 	specificdata_getspecific()
> 	-> tag_get()
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew

-- thorpej