Re: svn_pool_xxx vs apr_pool_xxx

Sander Striker wrote:

> We can safely replace all the svn_pool_xxx calls with apr_pool_xxx
> calls, minding a slight difference in API. An annoying one at that.
> The current pattern is:
>
> pool = svn_pool_create(parent_pool);
>
> While the apr pattern is:
>
> apr_pool_create(&pool, parent_pool);
>
>
> If I hear no objections, I'll make this change happen.

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.

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 15 20:06:16 2003