From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] basic priority queue implementation Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:23:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20110520132344.GA30616@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110519212349.GA28589@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110519212448.GB29584@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110520073821.GA3663@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Thiago Farina X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri May 20 15:24:00 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QNPgN-0005jq-8o for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 20 May 2011 15:23:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933658Ab1ETNXs (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 09:23:48 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:40409 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933647Ab1ETNXr (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 May 2011 09:23:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 29200 invoked by uid 107); 20 May 2011 13:25:49 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:25:49 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 20 May 2011 09:23:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:13:10AM -0300, Thiago Farina wrote: > > Speaking of naming, though, the real problem is that this data structure > > should be called "pqueue" or something similar to indicate that it is > > not a simple FIFO. Unfortunately, the short-and-sweet "pqueue" is taken > > by openssl, which pollutes all over the global namespace. > > > Hum, yeah when I read the commit message I though about the name of > the structure, but I didn't want to bother you with that. Probably you > have considered the option of naming it 'priority_queue' too. Haven't > you chose priority_queue, because you consider the name longer than > necessary? Exactly. Though unless somebody can come up with a practical case where using the priority queue speeds up some operation, I don't think it is worth applying anyway. So the naming question is somewhat academic. :) -Peff