Hi Paul,

> > I claim that using _gl_<something> is the less risky compromise.
> 
> Yes, thanks for explaining, and that sounds good to me too. Can we go in 
> that direction?

Moving from __gl_<something> to _gl_<something> is what I already did
in the 4 patches.

Do you mean, we should also move from gl_<something> to _gl_<something>
for non-public API, such as
  gl_consolesafe_fwrite
  gl_isinfd
  gl_signbitl
  gl_LDBL_SNAN
  gl_MB_CUR_MAX
  gl_fd_to_handle
? That would be fine with me.

Bruno




Reply via email to