Re: Hashtrees a bit unflexible

    > From: Andreas Rottmann <[email protected]>

    > 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?

Data and keys should be coextensive with `struct hashtree' nodes.
Thus, the `free_hashtree_fn' should be able to do what you want.   Is
there some reason why it can't?

-t