On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:53:28PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > My suggestion was going to be to just add a parameter that is an int* and > return true/false that way. If false is returned, you can check the > apr_status_t to see what happened. Or maybe it should be the other way > around, with int returned and an apr_status_t* in the parameter list.
I was considering that as well, and at this point I think that is a better general solution. Non-APR functions that want to use APR's apr_status_t codes don't have the luxury of being able to add another code, so given the performance tradeoff maybe this is the way to go... -aaron
