On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:01:22 +0300 >> From: Paul Irofti <p...@irofti.net> >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:50:00PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:46:33PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> > > > From: Paul Irofti <p...@irofti.net> >> > > > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:12:01 +0300 >> > > > >> > > > Any thoughts on this? >> > > >> > > Sorry, yes. Adding the crs "index" as the last argument of the >> > > callback function seems a bit non-intuitive to me. I'd say the void * >> > > argument should remain the last argument, and the crs "number" should >> > > be the first, although I could live with it being the second. >> > > >> > > I feel a bit bad though for not suggesting that earlier. >> > >> > Sure, makes sense. I thought about doing that too, but I did not know >> > how much breakage I could do to the original function. >> > >> > What about crsno, do you prefer it to be called crsidx? That might be >> > a better name... > > I agree! > >> Like this? > > Yes, ok kettenis@
I agree as well. ok guenther@ The other diff is looking good to me as well, cleaning things up and eliminating the duplicate parsing better than I expected. Thanks for doing this work! Philip
