Eric Blake writes:
> On 02/01/2016 06:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>>
>>> No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct,
>>> or when iterating a list.
>>
>> Perhaps "when ending the visit of a list or implicit
On 02/01/2016 06:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct,
>> or when iterating a list.
>
> Perhaps "when ending the visit of a list or implicit struct, or when
> moving to the next list node"
Eric Blake writes:
> No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct,
> or when iterating a list.
Perhaps "when ending the visit of a list or implicit struct, or when
moving to the next list node" would be more precise. If you like it, I
can do that on commit.
On 02/01/2016 06:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct,
>> or when iterating a list.
>
> Perhaps "when ending the visit of a list or implicit struct, or when
> moving to the next list node"
No backend was setting an error when ending an implicit struct,
or when iterating a list. Make the callers a bit easier to follow
by making this a part of the contract, and removing the errp
argument - callers can then unconditionally end an object as
part of cleanup without having to think about