Dan McGee wrote: > The "register" code could just as well be done in the handle setup > where I moved the call anyway. You'd save about 13 CPU cycles. It's > design that is meant to remove stupidity in a library where you have > to make what seems like a no-op call- but make sure you only do it > once. Why let users shoot themselves in the foot? We already handled > the teardown in alpm_release so this just makes the initialize side > map that.
Xavier Chantry wrote: > It's not separate logic. Dan commit log might have been a bit misleading. > > alpm_initialize initializes (wow) whatever is needed for the other > functions to work. What we do there is just allocate some structures > like the handle, and now handle->db_local as well. We are talking > about one calloc and one strdup here to setup db_local. Really no big > deal, there is no loading of the db, not even a check that one exists > at all. > And it does make it simpler for libalpm users. And as Dan said its > symetric with alpm_release. > Ah. It makes much more sense now, especially given the symmetry with alpm_release. Thanks. > > -Dan > > > > -Dan > > > > ^^ A sign I need my morning coffee... :) I just assumed that you had graduated to Double Dan: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dan_%28rank%29
