On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > [I wrote this two or so days ago, but see now somehow I failed to send it] > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 2:58 PM Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> wrote: > > It has been reported today that looking at the 'hash' module made Marc guess > > incorrectly what is desired coding style and terminology in Gnulib. > > I do not desire to standardize on the coding style suggested by these > diffs, so perhaps you should say "desired by some". > > I tried to make it clear the last time we discussed this (long ago!) > that I prefer to keep certain comments very near the function > definition (and implementation). > > I disagree with the premise that hash_delete should be renamed. That's > an API-breaking change. > > > > 1) regarding where to documented exported functions of a module > > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-10/msg00050.html> > > 2) regarding C++ interoperability, > > 3) regarding terminology ("delete" vs. "remove") > > <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-10/msg00091.html> > > > > Here are proposed patches to modernize the 'hash' and 'xhash' modules in > > this respect.
That said, I will not object to your normalizing diffs.
