Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>> Also, even if varargs are safe they'd be notationally unpleasant
>> in the extreme. varargs are just a PITA to work with --- you'd have
>> to do all the decoding in the first-level hook routine, even for
>> items you weren't going to use. With something like the above
>> all you need is a switch() and some pointer casts.
>>
>
> Switch, plus struct (basically a union) will do the trick nicely. Can
> it be a formal union, or is it better as a void*?
>
> The main issue was how what we called the 'hook data' was passed back
> and forth. We'll get a patch up.
>
>
>
All of this is getting quite a long way from what was in the commitfest
queue. Do we still want to try to get this in this cycle, or should it
be marked returned to author for more work?
cheers
andrew
