Hi, On 28/01/15 12:39, Bert Huijben wrote: > I applied a patch similar to the first hunk in r1655262, as this file is > processed mostly as C code. > > I'm not sure about the other hunks. It looks like they could be processed as > python where the other syntax is preferred.
I will look into that. The odd thing is when I remove the comments, check-swig-py trips over a svn_pool_create() call without arguments in proxy_apr.swg which looks wrong. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/include/proxy_apr.swg?revision=1573006&view=markup#l214 Andreas
