apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: APR_HAVE_SOAPBOX
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:52:20 GMT
Oversight on my part. We specified the symbol name in configure.in, so I
slapped the APR_ prefix on there. (the HAVE_ symbols come from autoconf, so
we can't do much about it)

How about APR_USING_OLD_EXPAT? I'm not comfy with the APR_HAS_ approach
because we aren't advertising the symbol, so we aren't saying APRUTIL has or
doesn't have a particular feature.

And this is a symbol from autoheader, so #ifdef is the right form.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:39:47AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> <soapbox>
> 
>   Greg... looking at your new apr_xml.c
> 
> #ifdef APR_HAVE_OLD_EXPAT
> #include "xmlparse.h"
> #else
> #include "expat.h"
> #endif
> 
>   Can we all agree that APR_HAVE_FOO is _ALWAYS_ defined in terms of a boolean?
> 
>   The reason I broke so much code was grepping for APR_HAVE_ and HAVE_, expecting
>   the former to be boolean and the later to be def/undef.  (Ok, that and fat fingers.)
> 
>   Not I'm not suggesting that we start populating the public space with HAVE_ symbols,
>   and we don't want to conflict with other libraries' HAVE_ symbols.  But can we say

>   that APR_HAS_ is a def/undef condition, and APR_HAVE_ is a boolean, expected always

>   to be declared?
> 
> </soapbox>

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message