Re: I'm unhappy about twalk_r

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

* DJ Delorie:

> Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:
>> Exposing this information using the VISIT argument seems wrong to me.
>
> I agree.  It would be more useful if the binary-ness of the tree were
> *more* exposed, so the user could take advatage of the walk-order, but
> we don't expose it.

But it's really an implementation detail, dependent on how the
implementation chooses to rebalance the tree (if at all).

>> I think this is much more useful: It avoids pointless repeated calls to
>> ACTION, and it allows premature termination of the iteration.
>
> twalk() is defined by POSIX.  If we have a *_r version of it, it should
> conform to the POSIX definition as closely as we can, despite these
> inefficiencies.

Hmm.  Okay.  Carlos said something similar, so I'm going to leave it
as-is.

Thanks,
Florian