RE: svn_pool_xxx vs apr_pool_xxx

On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 15:41, Sander Striker wrote:
> It's specific to all the clients we produce. If someone uses our libraries,
> we shouldn't force our abort handler upon them. They may not want that.

You haven't built a case for this assertion. What else would an
application possibly want? It might want our libraries to be better
behaved (i.e. to return an error on allocation failure), but it can't
have that right now. "We produce a SIGSEGV on allocation failure" is
strictly worse than "we produce a SIGABRT on allocation failure."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 15 21:46:25 2003