There was no way to get the current error routine now, and I figured
that a stack was a simple way of saving the old routine.
Essentially these two paths would be the same as a "save/restore" except
we manage it via a stack. I don't really see how that would end up any
different. I mean I don't mi
I actually am not a big fan of "stack" for a thing like this, to be honest.
Wouldn't it be sufficient for the callers who want specific behaviour from
its callees to
- save away the current error/warning routines;
- set error/warning routines to its own custom versions;
- call the callees;
- s
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 15:47 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jacob Keller writes:
>
> > extern void set_error_routine(void (*routine)(const char *err, va_list
> > params));
> > +extern void pop_error_routine(void);
>
> pop that undoes set smells somewhat weird. Perhaps we should rename
> set to
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 15:47 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jacob Keller writes:
>
> > extern void set_error_routine(void (*routine)(const char *err, va_list
> > params));
> > +extern void pop_error_routine(void);
>
> pop that undoes set smells somewhat weird. Perhaps we should rename
> set to
Jacob Keller writes:
> extern void set_error_routine(void (*routine)(const char *err, va_list
> params));
> +extern void pop_error_routine(void);
pop that undoes set smells somewhat weird. Perhaps we should rename
set to push? That would allow us catch possible topics that add new
calls to s
Let error routine be a stack of error functions so that callers can
temporarily override the error_routine and then pop their modification
off the stack. This enables customizing error for a small code segment.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller
---
This is a modification of Peff's original idea for han
6 matches
Mail list logo
