apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cliff Woolley <jwool...@virginia.edu>
Subject RE: more notes on the apr_time_t issue
Date Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:01:35 GMT

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Drop _t since this is a scalar type and not a structure/opaque?

Let's pleeeeze not do that.  We've managed to be beautifully consistent in
APR on that front, let's not backtrack now.

> With apr_time... our functions can stay as is.

I think I agree with rbb at this point... apr_time_t is the only thing
that makes any sense.  I'd thought of the utime == unsigned time problem a
day or two ago but forgot to mention it.

And while apr_time_busec_t is a bit better than apr_utime_t, I agree
people will say "wtf is a busec".  And it means we'd have to rename all
our time functions for no good reason.  "apr_time_now" just makes so much
sense.  "apr_time_t" makes so much sense.  That's just got to be it.

How to resolve Aaron's veto?  The #ifndef NEW_TIME_FMT thing is
interesting.  :)

--Cliff


Mime
View raw message