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 18:36:02 GMT
> From: Greg Marr [mailto:gregm@alum.wpi.edu]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 1:00 PM
> 
> At 01:51 PM 07/21/2000, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Jeff Baker [mailto:jwb@saturn5.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 5:41 PM
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <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.
> >
> >The other option is to basically thumb our noses at a bad practice and
> >just use _t.  I have very little opinion about this, but we need to do
> >this ASAP.
> 
> I'd say that since _t is reserved for type names, and that APR is 
> using them for type names, it is within the spirit of the 
> specification.  I think the point they were making was that people 
> shouldn't end function or variable names with _t, since _t indicates 
> a type.  Since APR also has a namespace prefix on all its types, it 
> should be safe.

That definately -not- what they state (and probably not what they mean)
but you are right, I agree we use these in the spirit of the spec.

So... I'm +.5 for leaving things as they are, and +.5 for using the
ap_t_bleh prefix ourselves.  I can take this posix spec or leave it.


Mime
View raw message