On 04/16/2013 08:33 AM, julianf...@apache.org wrote: > Author: julianfoad > Date: Tue Apr 16 12:33:08 2013 > New Revision: 1468395 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1468395 > Log: > Introduce a typedef 'svn_fs_freeze_func_t', for source code regularity and > symmetry with 'svn_repos_freeze_func_t'. It might also be useful for the > SWIG bindings.
When callback signatures are this generic, is there any good reason to proliferate their unique definition? Users don't really get any benefit by their having a unique type name that I can surmise. And every time we introduce a new callback type, the SWIG bindings must be tinkered with to support it. May I suggest that we either: * eliminate svn_repos_freeze_func_t, and simply make svn_repos_freeze() also accept this new svn_fs_freeze_func_t, or * eliminate both of those callback types, and introduce (in svn_types.h) an uber-generic callback that accepts a void * baton and a scratch_pool and is used for both svn_repos_freeze() and svn_fs_freeze(), plus any future such generic callback scenarios ? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
