Hello
Hi,
This is not obvious from the code and not visible in the name of the type.
Is it an idea to use _pt if the typedef is actually a pointer?
I don't have any objections to this, maybe someone else? In either case,
could you file a feature request for this?
I have no big issue with typedef ending with _pt, but i would prefer to
loose the pointer in typedef and just end with _t.
This is than inline with apr,
Ok, using the same convention as APR is a good reason to change this.
Final question: is there any plan for a new release? This would be
helpful
to start using Celix in a product.
There is no date yet. But if Pepijn does have some time, I think we can try
to make a list of issues we want to fix for a next release. I'd love to see
a release where the coding style has been fixed, and where windows support
has been tested a bit more.
I agree we should make a list of issues and try to make a next release. I
agreed with Alexander to discuss f2f after my holiday.
We will post the result of this meeting on this mailling list.
Ok, I created the four issues (hopefully in the correct way). Looking
forward for the release.
Greetings Gerrit
Greetings,
Pepijn
