Brad Nicholes wrote:
Is there a reason why the apr_procattr APIs were implemented as
apr_procattr_xxx_set (apr_procattr_t*, value)
rather than
apr_procattr_set (apr_procattr_t*, APR_xxx_ATTR, value, ...)
that's before my time, but I'd guess:
preserves typechecking on values
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:19:33AM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>Is there a reason why the apr_procattr APIs were implemented as
>
> apr_procattr_xxx_set (apr_procattr_t*, value)
>
> rather than
>
> apr_procattr_set (apr_procattr_t*, APR_xxx_ATTR, value, ...)
Because the different accessors
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>Is there a reason why the apr_procattr APIs were implemented as
>
> apr_procattr_xxx_set (apr_procattr_t*, value)
>
> rather than
>
> apr_procattr_set (apr_procattr_t*, APR_xxx_ATTR, value, ...)
>
> It seems like the second approach would make it ea
Is there a reason why the apr_procattr APIs were implemented as
apr_procattr_xxx_set (apr_procattr_t*, value)
rather than
apr_procattr_set (apr_procattr_t*, APR_xxx_ATTR, value, ...)
It seems like the second approach would make it easier for a platform
to extent the apr_procattr_t structure
