Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 73224 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2000 05:09:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 73213 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2000 05:09:52 -0000 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: minor pollution In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:05:07 BST." <3909C4C3.649EE399@algroup.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:09:54 -0700 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <200004282209.aa03002@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N >> > I kinda like the idea of globals being named to identify them as such. >> >> I didn't think he was suggesting getting rid of the g_, just making it >> namespace protected by adding an ap_ in front of it. But, I could be >> wrong of course. > >Speaking as the g_ perpetrator, I would say you add the ap_ after, not >before. i.e. g_ap_bDebugHooks. That would be very odd. The only reason we are using ap_ is to protect the name as part of our global symbol space. ap_ therefore means global. ....Roy