Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bill@wstoddard.com>
To: "APR Development List" <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: RE: cvs commit: apr renames_pending
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:14:11 -0400
Message-ID: <JHEPKCEMGPKFFDHHDDKDGEFBEMAA.bill@wstoddard.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <010d01c22c08$31650620$0a01230a@KOJ>
Importance: Normal


> > From: Thom May [mailto:thom@planetarytramp.net]
> >
> > * wrowe@apache.org (wrowe@apache.org) wrote :
> > > wrowe       2002/07/15 00:42:35
> > >
> > >   Modified:    .        renames_pending
> > >   Log:
> > >     Two down.  Don't know if I agree with the entire host of these
> > becoming
> > >     apr_socket_ foo, but, well... I won't argue.
> > Please do. That was why I commited them, in the hopes of some
> > discussion...
>
> Shoot, I've been in every other discussion this week.  I'll just say
> this.  The original names were to keep APR and POSIX names in sync.
> That was to leverage the huge number of POSIX programmers out there.  We
> only used different names from POSIX when we were implementing something
> that POSIX doesn't have, or when our implementation didn't look anything
> like POSIX.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Ryan

I agree with Ryan here.  I prefer the original 'POSIX friendly' names. We
are causing pain to a lot of people  by these gratuitous name changes.

Bill