On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 05:34:42PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Ian Holsman wrote: > > > should apr_checkmask be called apr_date_checkmask? > > > > mod_proxy uses it to do ap_checkmask(buf, "HTTP/#.# ###*") > > > > * @deffunc int apr_checkmask(const char *data, const char *mask) > > > */ > > > -APU_DECLARE(int) apr_checkmask(const char *data, const char *mask); > > > +APU_DECLARE(int) apr_date_checkmask(const char *data, > > > That's a good question. Until we answer it, to be consistent, I fixed the > @deffunc docco to say "apr_date_checkmask" before I forgot about it. > (I attributed it to you because I wouldn't have spotted it if you > hadn't asked about the function. :-) > > I'm open to the possibility that apr_*_checkmask has more functionality > than just date masks, meaning it should have a more generic name... > anybody have an opinion one way or the other?
My bad. I guess I missed that scandoc thing. Thanks for catching it. My sentiments are pretty much what Cliff said. It is in the apr_date.c file, so I renamed it to apr_date_checkmask to be consistent. If someone want to yank it out into another file, I'll accept patches. But, it'll require more changes to the DSPs - our favorite thing to do. -- justin
