On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > As near as I can tell from looking at the code and cvs logs, the only > reason we have apr_size_t and apr_ssize_t is because win32 wants to > define apr_ssize_t. Is that because win32 doesn't have ssize_t? > Is there a reason why we don't simply define ssize_t on that platform?
We've run into problems before doing things like this, well I suppose more with functions than with typenames. But in general, if we're going to export something, IMO it must always be apr_ namespaced. For example, there was a case recently where if strchr() or something was missing, we would just define it. But that would break binary compatibility with later patchlevels of the same OS that suddenly *did* define it, as we'd get duplicate definitions. Obviously the binary-compatibility argument doesn't hold for typenames, but I still think it wise to have everything consistently namespaced. It makes it easier for the programmer too -- if you're using APR, then all your types start with "apr_". It would be annoying to have to remember "oh, APR gives me this one, but there's no apr_ on it. APR gives me this other one but there *is* an apr_ on that." --Cliff
