On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:50:36PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > Agreed. And that API includes: > type_name_tbd operator+(type_name_tbd a, type_name_tbd b); > type_name_tbd operator-(type_name_tbd a, type_name_tbd b);
Right. > > If that bugs you (and it well might), then we need to go the > > apr_busec_t route and rename every APR time function. -- justin > > -1 for renaming any APR time functions: just rename the data type. If you go to a contract for the time, I think you need to have specific APR functions that go with that. My earlier example was that I might want apr_dsec_t as well. Therefore, to eliminate confusion, we have to have that type's functions strongly related to the type as there would be no generic time structure. It would be possible to have type confusion. Because, a user might inadvertently do the following. apr_dsec_t mytime = apr_time_now(); But, wait, you want apr_time_now() to return an apr_busec_t. Will the compiler issue a warning or an error here? In the common case, they will both be scalar, so I think the compiler just might issue an warning (or perhaps nothing at all). Therefore, I think it has to be: apr_dsec_t mytime = apr_time_dsec_now(); apr_busec_t mytime = apr_time_busec_now(); (time_ does not have to be in the function name.) My $.02. -- justin P.S. Try http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/types.c with your compiler!
