From dev-return-2458-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Wed Jun 06 21:35:20 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 72121 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2001 21:35:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 72048 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 21:35:11 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU: jcw5q owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:34:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Cliff Woolley X-X-Sender: To: cc: Graham Leggett Subject: RE: cvs commit: apr-util/test testdate.c In-Reply-To: <3482305AF0F6CF469ED45C0D48FAFCF7091FF474@cnet48.cnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: > should apr_checkmask be called apr_date_checkmask? > > mod_proxy uses it to do ap_checkmask(buf, "HTTP/#.# ###*") > > * @deffunc int apr_checkmask(const char *data, const char *mask) > > */ > > -APU_DECLARE(int) apr_checkmask(const char *data, const char *mask); > > +APU_DECLARE(int) apr_date_checkmask(const char *data, That's a good question. Until we answer it, to be consistent, I fixed the @deffunc docco to say "apr_date_checkmask" before I forgot about it. (I attributed it to you because I wouldn't have spotted it if you hadn't asked about the function. :-) I'm open to the possibility that apr_*_checkmask has more functionality than just date masks, meaning it should have a more generic name... anybody have an opinion one way or the other? --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley cliffwoolley@yahoo.com Charlottesville, VA