On 19 February 2015 at 13:57, Peter Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
> As you’re all aware, this is used pretty extensively throughout the > codebase. > > The reason I named all the core functions like this was to avoid name > clashes with other libraries, and with applications (e.g. for things like > substring, HashTable etc). > > However, if we can figure out the right compile-time options to control > symbol export, such that only public API functions are exposed to other > libraries or programs that use DocFormats, then these symbols will not be > seen, and there will be no chance of them clashing with names that might be > used by the application. > > What are your thoughts on this? Should the prefix go or stay? > go away except for the API. I would like though, to be able to identify the next level (filter core etc) in the function name so I know where to go searching. rgds jan i. > > — > Dr Peter M. Kelly > [email protected] > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > >
