apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: freezing 1.3 tonight
Date Fri, 02 May 2008 16:55:40 GMT
On May 2, 2008, at 8:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Christopher Key wrote:
>> The reason for wanting the (u)int8 types was primarily for  
>> readabilty, i.e. to distinguish between whether you are  
>> manipulating character data or numerical data.  Moreover, there  
>> are times where you specifically require an 8 bit uint, i.e. 255 +  
>> 1 == 0 etc.
>
> +1 (be warned about magic 128/-128 values that vary between 2's- 
> compliment
> and binary bitwise negation for apr_int8).
>
> Let's simply vote, I'll give this a very short voting window so we  
> don't
> block on the release.  It can still happen late today.
>
> I read Roy's objection as just that - an objection but not a veto.

Well, true, I merely object to the addition of unused and unnecessary  
types.
Clients are fully capable of defining this themselves.

However, I do -1 (veto) the addition of

+else
+    # no known value for 8 bit type
+    AC_ERROR([could not detect a 8-bit integer type])

and

+else
+    # no known value for 16 bit type
+    AC_ERROR([could not detect a 16-bit integer type])

and

+else
+    # no known value for 32 bit type
+    AC_ERROR([could not detect a 32-bit integer type])

for reasons already stated.  APR may add meaningless cruft if it likes,
but I will not have the httpd platforms reduced because of it.

....Roy

Mime
View raw message