since you work in D7, as I do, you already have namespaces (in the form of units), so this was never an issue, even if you wanted to have two versions of the same code built-in. as to why, well, consider a database
managent tool that has to open both 2.x and 3.x databases, and the only tool to structure your code and isolate interface from implementation is a crappy .H file. these people (c programmers) live in wasteland, I really admire them for the constructive way they use header files, include files, defines, make files, configure files and what not,and still manage to write code that is write-once, compile everywhere. this is something not easily achieved, given the tools they have to work with. otoh, I live in delphi land from day 1, and I *know* what they are missing... > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 5:10 PM > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > Subject: RE: [sqlite] Request for comment: Proposed SQLite API changes > > Thanks. I guess I never considered using two different > releases of any product within the same executable. Wonder > how many use this feature and why? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:54 AM > > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > > Subject: RE: [sqlite] Request for comment: Proposed SQLite > API changes > > > > > > It's a primitive form of namespaces in C. > > Renaming the function calls allows Sqlite2 and Sqlite3 to coexist > > within the same executable/binary. > > > > Mind you, if the functionality of a documented function changes (as > > opposed to merely extended) I would think it would warrent a major > > revision number increase. Sqlite versions 3.1.0 and 3.2.0 did not > > change as radically as is planned for this upcoming release. > > > > --- Fred Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Just curious, why is this being done anyway? I think this > > is the only > > > software product I have used that has this "feature." I > > fail to see the > > > usefulness from way up here above the source code, and I > ... > > > >
