On 24 September 2015 at 19:15, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> Julian Foad wrote: >>> Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>> [...] we also have many functions that accepts just POOL and use >>>> it as scratch pool. And we also have many functions that uses it as >>>> result pool. >>> >>> Yes, we do have many of those. That was the Old Way. Naming the pools >>> 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool' is the New Way. We seem to generally >>> agree that is better, and sometimes we rename the single 'pool' >>> argument of old functions to either 'scratch_pool' or 'result_pool'. >> >> Could you please give me link to the thread where we discussed The New >> Way? Yes, we use result_pool/scratch_pool, but I don't remember >> discussion about never using just one POOL. > > I don't know if this was ever explicitly discussed. (The thread where > the two-pools paradigm was first publicly is: Subject "result_pool and > scratch_pool", from Greg Stein, on 2008-10-06, archived at e.g. > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0268.shtml ) > As far I remember this thread about two pools paradigm itself (result_pool and scratch_pool). It's not about making all functions follow two pools paradigm. Some of API introduced in 1.9 doesn't follow this paradigm for some reason. Please understand me correctly: I really like two pool paradigm, but sometimes it's not necessary, especially for local helpers.
-- Ivan Zhakov
