apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: next steps for changing apr_time_t?
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:08:14 GMT
At 11:46 AM 7/8/2002, Tony Finch wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:20:24AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >
> > I am strongly opposed to reusing the apr_time_t identifier.
>I note that apr_time_t is a bad name in the first place, because POSIX
>reserves all names ending in _t for the implementation. Feel free to
>ignore this exceedingly irritating naming rule :-)

+1, all agreed here.  ANSI reserved all _prefixed names for the clib, and
that is one we respect.  We always prefix symbols with apr_... and
an implementation with an apr_xxx_t type would be extremely unlikely.


View raw message