Hi libuvers
While trying to come up wrappers, We sometimes feel accessing internal
member will ease our life.
Will there any any bad impacts for
> uv_d_close(uv_d_t *d, uv_close_cb uv_cb) {
> d_close(d, d_cb);
> }
we want to call uv_close with uv_cb as callback in d_cb. For this to
happen, we need to pass uv_cb.
1) We don't want to touch `void *data` of handle , should be reserved for
app writer
2) We can introduce function pointer in uv_d_t struct, but that seems to be
a repeat and waste of memory.
So if we write
>void d_cb(uv_d_t *d, int rv) {
uv_close(d->uv_tcp_t_.close_cb, d->uv_tcp_t_.close_cb);
>}
> uv_d_close(uv_d_t *d, uv_close_cb uv_cb) {
> d->uv_tcp_t.close_cb = uv_cb;
> return d_close(d, d_cb);
>}
Will there be any bad impacts APART from depending on internal
represenation is bad, as implementation can change.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"libuv" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libuv.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
