Den fre 8 aug. 2025 kl 17:53 skrev Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:
> > > On 8/8/25 1:06 PM, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm preparing some updates to the documentation and since I'm not so > experienced in C I'd like to ask before I make a stupid mistake. > > > > In include/apr_thread_proc.h there typedef apr_child_errfn_t. The first > parameter is called "pool" in the docstring but called > > "proc" in the actual declaration. I think "pool" is a more logical name. > > > > As far as I understand it, changing the parameter name shouldn't have a > difference in the published API. Is this correct? > > This would be my understanding as well. > > > > > [[[ > > Index: include/apr_thread_proc.h > > =================================================================== > > --- include/apr_thread_proc.h (revision 1927687) > > +++ include/apr_thread_proc.h (working copy) > > @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ > > * @param err APR error code describing the error > > * @param description Text description of type of processing which > failed > > */ > > -typedef void (apr_child_errfn_t)(apr_pool_t *proc, apr_status_t err, > > +typedef void (apr_child_errfn_t)(apr_pool_t *pool, apr_status_t err, > > const char *description); > > > > /** Opaque Thread structure. */ > > ]]] > > > > Agree that pool is a better name? > > Yes. > > Regards > > Rüdiger > Thanks to both Brane and Rüdiger for the quick review. As you may have seen, I committed this in r1927700 along with a bunch of "obvious fixes". There are still quite a lot of warnings about undocumented parameters but they were not so obvious so I left them alone at this time. Cheers, Daniel
