Re: switching to proto_tree_add_subtree()

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

On 07/30/14 01:30, darkjames-ws () darkjames pl wrote:
> 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?

Well, no, they'll only return the same thing if TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM 
short-cuts us out, right?

___________________________________________________________________________
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