* Boszormenyi Zoltan (zb@cybertec.at) wrote:
> Stephen Frost was against the array pointer/count variant,
> it was done that way earlier. Let me redo it again. :-)
I still don't particularly like the array approach, and see the
array+count approach as worse (seems like a higher chance that the count
will end up being wrong at some point than having an array termination
identifier). I still like the List approach, as that builds on a
structure we've already got and can take advantage of the existing
infrastructure. but Tom's got a good point regarding the potential for
memory leaks with that solution.
I havn't had a chance to look, but I would have expected the Lists for
these to be allocated in a per-statement context, which would address
the memory leak issue. Perhaps that isn't possible though. I agree
that the List construct doesn't particularly help the callers, though I
do think it makes the enable_timeouts() function cleaner.
Thanks,
Stephen
