httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
Date Tue, 07 Apr 1998 22:59:20 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >
> > 1. We need to do something about overloaded function names.
> > 2. Using a header to redefine them is attractive, but breaks things.
> > 3. Therefore they need to be renamed in place.
> >
> > Now, if anyone disagrees with my reasoning up to this point, please
> > explain where I went wrong.
> I have not yet been shown what is broken by step two that is
> significant enough to cause this to be unacceptable as a short-term
> fix that avoids all this crap.

My understanding (probably wrong) was that there are tools that are
broken by it. I wouldn't say this made it unacceptable, but if there's
an engineering solution that avoids the problem, we should use it, no?

> "I don't like it" isn't valid, I can't see how "it makes my debugging
> harder" is valid (since it can be disabled if you want to do debugging;
> you already have to modify things, eg. -g to debug),

Well, no - the assumption is that you can't link without fixing the
problem so switching it off for debug is not an option, right?

> "it breaks things
> that don't grok C include files" is probably the most valid I have
> heard, but still doesn't hold much water; take a look and you will
> see that this is really the least of the worries of someone trying
> to write a module in another language.  We already require that they
> grok C include files even without hide.h.

I thought what was broken was ctags style stuff?



Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|  Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|
and Technical Director|Email: |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG"

View raw message