fielding 2002/07/12 18:49:35
Modified: . STATUS
Log:
more votes
Revision Changes Path
1.162 +6 -5 apr/STATUS
Index: STATUS
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/STATUS,v
retrieving revision 1.161
retrieving revision 1.162
diff -u -r1.161 -r1.162
--- STATUS 12 Jul 2002 22:26:59 -0000 1.161
+++ STATUS 13 Jul 2002 01:49:35 -0000 1.162
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@
2) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t confusion,
but keep it ambigious and make no contract with the user about the
units represented. Needs a better suggestion than apr_timeval_t.
- +1: aaron, brianp, ianh
+ +1: aaron, brianp, ianh,
+ fielding [prefers apr_time and apr_span (_t is half the
problem)]
-0: jerenkrantz, striker, dreid
-0.5: rbb
wrowe [prefers apr_utime_t and apr_uspan_t where u==undefined]
@@ -86,14 +87,14 @@
3) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t confusion,
and strongly identify the type as apr_busec_t or apr_butime_t, with
an ongoing contract with users about the type's units.
- +1: fielding [prefers apr_busec]
+0.5: wrowe, [prefers apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
- brianp [can live with apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
+ brianp, [can live with apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
+ fielding [me too]
-0: striker, jerenkrantz
-0.5: rbb, ianh, dreid
4) Using time_t and struct timeval/tm
- +1: fielding
+ +1: fielding (if apr_time is not an ADT)
-1: brianp, wrowe
[fielding: Is APR time guaranteed to be a scalar quantity? If so,
