On 7/24/17, petern <peter.nichvolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Great. But, if this is an ultimate replacement for BLOB'ed pointers, these > new pseudo-null pointers must support SQLITE_STATIC and destructor function > pointer lifetime disposition for those migrating their code.
Nobody is forcing you to migrate your legacy code to the new API. Anything that worked for you in 3.19.3 (or earlier) will continue to work just as well in 3.20.0. If what you are doing now works for you, then you are welcomed to keep doing exactly the same in the future. > > Why can't the producer destructor disposition be preserved within a chain > of application functions by subsequent consumers passing SQLITE_STATIC > disposition as they do now? I cannot say with precision because your proposal is vague. But what you want to do will very likely use extra memory and extra CPU cycles for the overwhelmingly common case where pointers are not being passed. We do not want to burden the common case for the convenience of an outlier. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
