Ivan Zhakov wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> [...] we also have many functions that accepts just POOL and use >>> it as scratch pool. And we also have many functions that uses it as >>> result pool. >> >> Yes, we do have many of those. That was the Old Way. Naming the pools >> 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool' is the New Way. We seem to generally >> agree that is better, and sometimes we rename the single 'pool' >> argument of old functions to either 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool'. > > Could you please give me link to the thread where we discussed The New > Way? Yes, we use result_pool/scratch_pool, but I don't remember > discussion about never using just one POOL.
I don't know if this was ever explicitly discussed. (The thread where the two-pools paradigm was first publicly is: Subject "result_pool and scratch_pool", from Greg Stein, on 2008-10-06, archived at e.g. http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0268.shtml ) > One problem with single pool argument named result_pool is performing > temporary allocations. I find temporary allocations in result_pool > slightly confusing. I agree with that. That is a good point. Maybe the argument it is not so clear. I have sometimes found that situation, and I have wondered if the best thing is to declare "apr_pool_t *scratch_pool = result_pool;" inside the function, but I don't often do that. - Julian
