At 08:49 PM 7/12/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t
confusion,
but keep it ambigious and make no contract with the user
about the
units represented. Needs a better suggestion than apr_timeval_t.
- +1: aaron, brianp, ianh
+ +1: aaron, brianp, ianh,
+ fielding [prefers apr_time and apr_span (_t is half the
problem)]
Just as a point of reference, we have adopted _t for all types in APR by
convention. If this is our type, it needs an apr_ prefix and _t suffix.
That's just the way the library has evolved. Screw the '_t is reserved to
the implementation' when we've already gone and apr_ decorated it all.
As soon as a vendor comes out with an apr_foo_t type... we can all
chuckle.
Bill
