Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020712210416.027fb438@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:05:42 -0500
To: dev@apr.apache.org
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr STATUS
In-Reply-To: <20020713014935.68260.qmail@icarus.apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 08:49 PM 7/12/2002, fielding@apache.org wrote:
>          2) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t 
> confusion,
>             but keep it ambigious and make no contract with the user 
> about the
>             units represented.  Needs a better suggestion than apr_timeval_t.
>   -         +1: aaron, brianp, ianh
>   +         +1: aaron, brianp, ianh,
>   +             fielding [prefers apr_time and apr_span (_t is half the 
> problem)]

Just as a point of reference, we have adopted _t for all types in APR by
convention.  If this is our type, it needs an apr_ prefix and _t suffix.

That's just the way the library has evolved.  Screw the '_t is reserved to
the implementation' when we've already gone and apr_ decorated it all.
As soon as a vendor comes out with an apr_foo_t type... we can all
chuckle.

Bill