[Jean Delvare] > Your original reason for not going with a "static" set of function > pointers but instead using a struct of them was that it would "allow > for some extra flexibility". Could you elaborate on this?
I must admit, I do no longer remember why I wrote this. Looking at the code, the advantage I see is that using a struct of function pointers instead of direct references to functions make sure all methods calls need to go through this defined interface, and that new members can be appended to the struct in a later version without any changes to precompiled library clients. It also allow changes to the implementation of these methods (like inserting a new output format or an alternative implementation for the same format) without rebuilding the client, which can be selected by new logic in set_output_format() without affecting shared library clients. I do not really care which approach is selected, my goal with the patch was to make sure my proposed approach was understood and demonstrated to be working, as I got the impression that my suggestion was to brief. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
