On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > If Cliff wants to commit the semantic change to apr_table_[v]do, I'll > +1 here and raise you a _NONSTD correction. Along with Sander's > changes to make the unsafe transparent apr_allocator.h structure > opaque, I'd say we have a bit of worthwhile breakage to inflict before > we go on. By the way, 99.5% of coders will be unaffected by any of > these three changes. They can take advantage of the apr_table_[v]do > change or ignore it.
So you didn't indicate an opinion on whether the existing semantics of apr_table_vdo() match their documentation, and if not, whether it's the docs or the implementation that have it right. I need to know in order to proceed with the return-type change. Thanks... --Cliff
