>>160You asked a stupid question, loaded with stupid assumptions, about wanting to do something ``every'' time. I responded with another stupid question about doing something ``always'', ``no matter what'', etc, also making a stupid assumption (that you want to use one structure/function for everything). This is what I meant by ``A suitable response''. A dumb question for a dumb question.
I intended for you to read my rhetorical question and think ``Why yes, my question was a silly mischaracterization of his argument''. At that point you would realize that we are not actually arguing over anything - you just think I have a bias against linked lists, and I just dislike implementing data structures without taking into account how they will be used. Unfortunately, I seem to have overestimated you, and so your mind boggled instead of getting the point.
For crying out loud, let this discussion drop. Neither of us is saying anything interesting or remotely controversial, and the only reason I'm bothering to reply is that every time you post you make errors misrepresenting my position.