On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Jakub Wilk <[email protected]> wrote: > * Alessandro Ghedini <[email protected]>, 2011-06-10, 12:59: >>> >>> I saw this in city.h: >>> >>> | typedef uint8_t uint8; >>> | typedef uint32_t uint32; >>> | typedef uint64_t uint64; >>> | typedef std::pair<uint64, uint64> uint128; >>> | >>> | inline uint64 Uint128Low64(const uint128& x) { return x.first; } >>> | inline uint64 Uint128High64(const uint128& x) { return x.second; } >>> >>> It is not acceptable to define such a generic names in a public header. >>> Please educate your upstream not to do that. >> >> I don't quite understand. Of course they may have just avoided those >> typedefs in the first place but, no one forces you to include that header if >> you don't find it appropriate. > > Great, so the bug doesn't affect user who don't use your package. How about > caring also about those who do?
May I please make a simple suggestion to put "static inline" instead of just "inline" in front of the questionable function declarations? This will cause VERY annoying link-time problems if the header file is ever #included into more than one object file. By putting "static", the problem of generic names will be at least limited to compile-time which is less serious and easier to work around than link-time. -David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
