At 11:37 AM 7/11/2002, you wrote:
brianp 2002/07/11 09:37:50
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
Added vote on apr_time_t naming
2) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t
confusion,
which wrowe suggests apr_butime_t [binary microtime].
+1: fielding
-0: wrowe
-0.5: rbb
+ -1: brianp [-1 for the apr_butime_t name specifically: let's
+ keep the type name independent of the internal
+ representation, so that we don't have to
+ change the name the next time we change the
+ implementation. I'd prefer something like
+ apr_timeval_t, but I can live with apr_time_t.]
You have a huge falacy there. There is no way to change the definition
without breaking binary compatibility.
Since we are committed [on a go forward] to binary compatibility, this
definition will not be changing anytime before 1.0, then before 2.0.
So whatever we do, it will be quite stable. But I vote on the apr_time_t
side, so it makes no nevermind here :)
Bill
