[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn_pool_xxx vs apr_pool_xxx

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-08-15 19:49:18 CEST

Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> My only objection is that I find
>
> apr_pool_t *subpool = svn_pool_create(pool);
>
> a lot easier on the eyes (and the vertical whitespace) than
>
> apr_pool_t *subpool;
>
> apr_pool_create(&subpool, pool);
>
> It's not a huge objection, but there it is if anyone cares. Of
> course, this is probably because I've only really used APR in the
> context of Subversion, so I never got used to the other pattern.

I kind of feel the same way, actually.

I'd rather keep the wrapper function, even if it stops doing anything
special (as opposed to getting rid of it, and discovering later that
we really did want a hook on pool creation -- for example, for certain
kinds of instrumentation).

Also, making such a sweeping change now will invalidate a lot of
patches <+shudder+>. If the change had a large benefit, that might be
worth it, but I don't think this one does.

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 15 20:30:25 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.