On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 09:09, Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
> I disagree. Rather, I think we should export the baton carrying functions, as
> well as two functions to create/finish with batons. Then the consumer of the
> API determines the life of the baton. This makes sense, since they are the
> only ones who know how long the operation is going to last.
Uh, if I understand what you're proposing, this is not really a baton as
we understand it.
First, it shouldn't be a void *. There's only one wc library, and thus
only one structure type needed to hold cached data. If you want to use
forward structure declarations to make it opaque to the caller, great,
but don't make it a void *. No need to sacrifice type safety
unnecessarily.
Second, as Ben said in a separate thread, when most of us see "baton" we
think "user data"--that is, something opaque to the callee but
transparent to the caller. (The editor interface may be an exception,
but once you're in vtable-land things are already kind of convoluted.)
What we have here is more of a "context"--something opaque to the caller
but transparent to the callee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 11 22:09:22 2002