Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cliff Woolley <jwoolley@virginia.edu>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
cc: dev@httpd.apache.org, <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/include apr_time.h
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020612162730.0265bd98@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206121742220.23858-100000@deepthought.cs.virginia.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> It seems that we've decided sometime back that all macro-fns should be
> declared in ucase.  Now, we can debate that issue again, but if someone
> could pull up a reference to that thread in the archives it would be
> most cool.

Somewhere in dev@apr when we talked about APR_BUCKET_DELETE() vs
apr_bucket_delete() or one of its friends there was a brief discussion
about it.

Basically it came down to this:  If the macro *could* be a function (by
virtue of no unintended side-effects as you mentioned), then give it a
lowercase name.  If side-effects might occur, give it an uppercase name.
(This is all basically what you said.)  In practice, if any one of a group
of macro-fn's gets an uppercase name, typically all of its related ones
do, too, for ease-of-remembering.

In this case, I'd say lowercase is fine by majority.  For the one
exception you mentioned, we can wrap the macro body with {} and declare a
temporary variable inside that scope in which to store the value passed
to the macro, thereby regaining function-like semantics.  There's
precedent in the code for this already...

--Cliff