On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:30:57 -0400, Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> 
> In general, it seems to me that memory management in notmuch bindings is
> a little bit harder than it needs to me due to the decision not to
> talloc_ref parent objects when a new child object is created. This means
> that a bindings author needs to recreate the ownership tree in their
> binding, a task which is fairly easily done (except in the case of
> Haskell due to the weak GC finalization guarantees) but seems quite
> unnecessary. Is there a reason this decision was made? Would a patch be
> accepted adding talloc_ref'ing parents in those functions creating
> children and talloc_frees in *_destroys?
> 
Any opinions concerning whether this is an acceptable idea? I wouldn't
mind putting together a patch-set, but I'd rather not waste my time if
the set would ultimately be rejected due to some technical objection I
have yet to think of.

Cheers,

- Ben