Re: [PATCH] Keywords as hash - Final(?) submission

Julian Foad wrote:
> One thing you could do if people don't like it is keep the existing
> implementation of that function (which doesn't need a pool) rather than
> changing it to a wrapper around the new function.

I don't see how that is possible; as a deprecated function, I have to support it
to the best of my ability using the new functionality, since there is no way to
support it with the old (the data doesn't exist that way any longer). Or are
you suggesting that I keep _all_ of the old functions around for compatibility
purposes, and have API/code duplication instead of compatility wrappers?

As a deprecated function, however, I expect fewer callers to it over time
(actually as a function which probably should not have been part of the public
interface, I don't expect _any_ callers to it). So the minor /faux pax/ of
creating a top-level pool with a very brief lifespan should be a forgivable
limitation.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5747
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org