httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: POSIX namespace.
Date Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:46:09 GMT
> From: Jeff Baker [mailto:jwb@saturn5.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 5:41 PM
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
> > So, I was talking to somebody at O'Reilly, and it turns out that POSIX has
> > the entire _t namespace.  Do we want to change all of our names before we
> > release our first beta, or are we okay with infringing on POSIX?
> 
> That was me.  Since nobody seemed to believe me at the time 
> :), here is a reference:
> 
> 
>    www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.0.6/text/libc.txt
> "
>    Some additional classes of identifier names are reserved for future
> extensions to the C language or the POSIX.1 environment.  While using
> these names for your own purposes right now might not cause a problem,
> they do raise the possibility of conflict with future 
> versions of the C or
> POSIX standards, so you should avoid these names.
> 
> ...
> 
>    * Names that end with `_t' are reserved for additional type names."
> 
> My two cents would be to regexp out the all those _t's.

<RANT>
The rest of the C world has lived on prefixes for years... so I find a
blanket suffix assumption to be an entirely bad practice.
</RANT>

I would like to see us retain a _t designation of sorts... something
like ap_ourtype_dt (for data type?)  Or if we want to stay entirely in 
the prefix world, perhaps ap_t_ourtype would be equally effective.

Bill

Mime
View raw message