Browse Source
We usually did this, but sometimes they were named after what they did, rather than what they cleaned up. There are still a few exceptions: 1. I didn't bother creating destroy_xxx wrappers for htable routines which already existed. 2. Sometimes destructors really are used for side-effects (eg. to simply mark that something was freed): these are clearer with boutique names. 3. Generally destructors are static, but they don't need to be: in some cases we attach a destructor then remove it later, or only attach to *some* cases. These are best with qualifiers in the destroy_<type> name. Suggested-by: @ZmnSCPxj Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>ppa-0.6.1
Rusty Russell
7 years ago
committed by
Christian Decker
9 changed files with 26 additions and 23 deletions
Loading…
Reference in new issue