On Friday, July 12, 2002, at 07:05 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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.
Oh, I see -- it is only inconsistent in apr-util. Never mind then.
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.
In general, I would hope that we could learn from design decisions that
lead to errors in client programs. Making all of our types look like
POSIX types is one of those errors.
....Roy
