Re: Hashtrees a bit unflexible

Andreas Rottmann <[email protected]> writes:

> I just noted that hackerlabs hashtrees are a bit unflexible compared
> to the GLib ones: You cannot pass an additional pointer to e.g. the
> hashtree_free_data_fn. I would however need this functionality to be
> able to keep the storage in a memchunk for efficient (esp. space-wise)
> allocation. 
>
> A hack to do so would involve using a special "rules" structure that
> has an additional field. Is this the way it's ment to work, or should
> hashtree functions be extended to take an additional void * argument?
> If the argument would be last, this change wouldn't break ABI wrt
> existing usage, I think. Tom?
>
Well, for now I went around it by using the newly introduced
hashtree_fold(), before using hashtree_free(), but of course
traversing the tree twice imposes a bit of unecessary overhead.

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | [email protected]      | 118634484@ICQ | [email protected]
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.  -- Donald E. Knuth