+1. We do have a few places where we consume specific errors as part
of normal operations (such as finding the top of a repository), but
even these rarely happen in loops. I think the simplification is well
worth the extra expense.
Greg H, do want to do it?
-K
Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> In other words, svn_error_create() would simply call
> apr_pool_create(NULL)?
>
> > * Functions would no longer have to take a pool argument simply
> > because they might return errors. (Though, for functions in our
> > API, we wouldn't want to remove the pool parameter unless we could
> > be sure that no reasonable implementation of the function would
> > want to allocate memory, not merely that the current
> > implementation doesn't allocate memory.)
> >
> > This would be a traumatic change as far as the SWIG bindings and
> > svncpp (not to mention our own code base), but it would be a dramatic
> > simplification, and we'd certainly want to do it before 1.0 if we did
> > it at all.
>
> I like this, very clean indeed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 24 18:20:08 2002