Re: svn commit: rev 3598 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> * Use a subpool of trail->scratchpool and destroy it. We like to
> discourage this except for unbounded loops, because pools are considered
> fairly heavyweight objects.
>
> * Use trail->scratchpool itself, and hope you don't get called too
> many times.

But wouldn't the caller take care of it, then?

That is, why can't users -- caller and callee -- of trail->scratchpool
treat it just the way they would treat a separate pool argument?

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 1 07:09:47 2002