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; - set error/warning routines back to their original; and - return from it at least in the code paths under discussion? On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 15:47 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jacob Keller <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> 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 set_error_routine() as well by forcing the system not to >> link when they are merged without necessary fixes. >> > > Also curious what your thoughts on making every set_*_routine to be a > stack? For now I was only planning on error but it maybe makes sense to > change them all? > > Thanks, > Jake > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
