On 19 May 2010, at 00:12, Chris Knight wrote: > Thanks, I mostly didn't want it to be part of apr_pool_create because then > you'd have to change every instance of calling apr_pool_create;
Yes of course. It would be a separate create function, apr_pool_create_with_allocator or something similar but less verbose, and certainly nearer apr_pool_create_ex. > plus most users will not need this capability so rather not have 99% of > apr_pool_create calls with 3 NULL's at the end. Also the semantics get a > little confusing in doing this at apr_pool_create; is the apr_pool_t * > allocated from the allocator_alloc_fn or via malloc()? :-) Surely, from the parent pool! That's only a question in a top-level create. -- Nick Kew
