httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: apr_ v.s. ap_
Date Tue, 04 May 1999 20:51:03 GMT
Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 4 May 1999, Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> > Geez. Should we also rename the request_rec fields? Hey, why not... they
> 
> Yes, I renamed request_rec fields in apache-nspr -- the ones which
> had semantic or access changes which weren't simple search and replace.
> That way the compiler could diagnose the problem.

Yes, fine, but you're taking my point out of context.

The point that I was making was *gratuitous* changes. Not changes that
will help you to diagnose errors.

The apr_ prefix is gratuitous, in my mind, as the functions should
retain the same semantics as before. If the signature changes (with or
without a corresponding semantic change), then the compiler will catch
it that way. No need to rename the function. If the semantics *do*
change, then a new function should be used.

I agree with Ben re: this is a huge cost to take now for a
low-probability benefit later.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message