> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitry Yemanov [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Martes, 08 de Abril de 2014 2:12
> >
> > Extending an idea it would be good to rename all such
> constants in the
> > same manner. No?
>
> Perhaps. But formally, BLR is a part of the public API, such a chang
08.04.2014 09:36, Roman Simakov wrote:
> 2014-04-08 9:28 GMT+04:00 Claudio Valderrama C. :
>> People, I think I'm not the only one that has been misled by the BRL symbols
>> blr_boolean and blr_bool. I propose to rename them
>> blr_boolean -> blr_boolean_op
>> blr_bool -> blr_boolean_type.
>> Even
2014-04-08 9:28 GMT+04:00 Claudio Valderrama C. :
> People, I think I'm not the only one that has been misled by the BRL symbols
> blr_boolean and blr_bool. I propose to rename them
> blr_boolean -> blr_boolean_op
> blr_bool -> blr_boolean_type.
> Even if awkward to write, the names avoid the curre
People, I think I'm not the only one that has been misled by the BRL symbols
blr_boolean and blr_bool. I propose to rename them
blr_boolean -> blr_boolean_op
blr_bool -> blr_boolean_type.
Even if awkward to write, the names avoid the current confusion.
C.
---
Claudio Valderrama C.
Consultant, SW d
