From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f32236e7e55b02e0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Joseph T" Subject: Re: Ada Queue Date: 2000/04/06 Message-ID: <38ecc752@news.hamilton.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 607637716 Sender: "Joseph T" References: <38eca724@news.hamilton.edu> <8ciesn$4mt$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: 6 Apr 2000 13:20:18 -0500, 150.209.8.54 Reply-To: "Joseph T" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-User-Info: 150.209.132.164 150.209.132.164 Date: 2000-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I need to explain why I chose to iterate through using the variable that was passed instead of the temporary variable. The only thing I can think of is that I tried it and it worked. Trial and error. Perhaps it's not as efficient, or logical, or conventional..but it really doesn't make a difference as long as the proper variable of the queue is returned. I was wondering if any one could shed some light as to another reason this solution works well, or why someone might choose it. Thank you so much for helping. Ted Dennison wrote: >In article <38eca724@news.hamilton.edu>, > "Joseph T." wrote: >> >> Can anyone corroborate why I chose to make this enqueue function using >> the passed pointer to Q instead of the temp pointer to loop through >> the queue? Any suggestions, ideas, compliments, critiques are greatly >> appreciated. > >Perhaps, if you were to tell me why you chose to do that. I can hardly >corroborate something I don't know about. > >Perhaps you should rephrase the question? > >-- >T.E.D. > >http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html > > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Before you buy.