Re: Questions about svn_error_clear().

--On Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:17 PM +0000 Max Bowsher <maxb@ukf.net>
wrote:

>> Of these four, I think I favor (3), and I'll implement it if people
>> agree.
>
> I really really don't like the idea of (3).
> I think the idiom it destroys is useful and elegant.

I agree: 3 is awful.

> (2) is messy, and (4) is not so good, because error cases are much less
> exercised than success cases.

Agreed on #2.

Not agreed on #4: it's my preference. However, I have a subtle variant on
that: could we add a level of indirection to the allocated svn_error_t's to
make it known when it has been cleared? It's slightly different than #4, but
would ensure we won't segfault if we called repeatedly.

> Therefore, my vote is for (1). Obviously, that means I'm volunteering to do
> some of the work.
>
> Let code review and committer vigilance be our protection against
> re-occurrence of this class of bug.

I don't like relying upon humans either. -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 16 22:34:40 2004