Re: switching to proto_tree_add_subtree()

[darkjames-ws () darkjames pl]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 06:47:53PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> > However, I don't quite understand why for tree!=NULL but not visible,
> > proto_tree_add_text() returns tree. I can see this in the code, we call
> > TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM(), which returns the tree itself when it's not
> > visible. But what sense does this make for the caller?
>
> I think it's because while proto_trees are allowed to be NULL, we
> don't want (or the API is not ready for) proto_items to be NULL.
> (IOW that "return tree" quoted above is (ab)using the fact that a
> proto_item is a proto_tree.)
>
>
> Does this mean that this code in add_subtree_format() should be
> setting *tree_item to 'tree' (instead of NULL) here:
>
> >    /* Make sure pi is initialized in case TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM bails */
> >        if (tree_item != NULL)
> >                *tree_item = NULL;

Wouldn't be it simpler if we just remove 'tree_item' argument?
Cause I understand that after change *tree_item is always the same as return value?

Regards,
Jakub.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe