Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 58708 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jan 2001 22:47:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 58697 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2001 22:47:08 -0000 From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200101192247.RAA08394@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: AP_CORE_DECLARE() To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:47:11 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: <001101c08268$9ea5f5a0$92c0b0d0@roweclan.net> from "William A. Rowe, Jr." at Jan 19, 2001 04:39:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > Thought, > > > > core is only for Apache (right?????) I'm going to modify the > > AP_CORE_DECLARE sematic to always use the C calling convention > > (by equating AP_CORE_DECLARE with AP_DECLARE_NONSTD). > > > > Footnote, it obliviates AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD() since every function > declared as AP_CORE_DECLARE() accepts the 'nonstandard' semantics > such as variable args. The two would fold into the shorter name. > > Does this appeal? > appeals to me. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Casanova will have many weapons; To beat him you will have to have more than forks and flatulence."