Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 20250 invoked by uid 6000); 16 Oct 1997 22:54:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 20229 invoked from network); 16 Oct 1997 22:54:44 -0000 Received: from topaz.decus.org (HELO DECUS.Org) (192.67.173.1) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 16 Oct 1997 22:54:44 -0000 Received: from Master.DECUS.Org (master.process.com) by DECUS.Org (PMDF V4.2-13 #26234) id <01IOVVBKI0E88WWBNQ@DECUS.Org>; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:54:13 EDT Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:56:16 -0400 From: coar@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Suggestion for HTTP_PROTO(maj,min) macro To: New-HTTPd@apache.org, Coar@decus.org Message-id: <97101618561645@decus.org> X-VMS-To: NH X-VMS-Cc: COAR Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org >From the fingers of Martin Kraemer flowed the following: > >I sometimes wondered if there was a better (or more intuitive) way to say... > if (r->proto_num >= 1001) ... >I would prefer, like, > if (r->proto_num >= HTTP_PROTO(1,1)) ... I like the concept, but I'd really like a better name for the macro - "PROTO" to me means "prototype" more frequently than it does "protocol". I know the field is named "proto_num", but I'm not wild about that, either. #ken P-)}