Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > 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.
Note that we're using doxygen now, which: a) Doesn't understand @deffunc b) Doesn't need it Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
