On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:58:55AM -0400, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 07/22/13 at 08:41am, Dave Reisner wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2013 2:48 AM, "Andrew Gregory" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Gregory <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > OK... I'll bite. Why? Is this really going to be used elsewhere? Seems like > > an error case that should be handled by the like any other. > > My goal wasn't reusability so much as visibility. It's an artificial > limitation we impose to prevent memory exhaustion in a recursive call, > not a true error condition. I also did this with the thought of > eventually trying to make the parser usable for pacman-related > programs outside of pacman proper and making the limit configurable. > I don't know if a macro is the best way to do that, though. > > apg >
Although minor, I'm against this. If you want this to be extensible and useful outside of pacman proper (and this is indeed a noble goal), then you need to create an opaque context that users would instantiate similar to alpm_handle_t. The recursion limit would have get/set methods exposed in the API.
