At 11:46 AM 7/8/2002, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:20:24AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> I am strongly opposed to reusing the apr_time_t identifier.
I note that apr_time_t is a bad name in the first place, because POSIX
reserves all names ending in _t for the implementation. Feel free to
ignore this exceedingly irritating naming rule :-)
+1, all agreed here. ANSI reserved all _prefixed names for the clib, and
that is one we respect. We always prefix symbols with apr_... and
an implementation with an apr_xxx_t type would be extremely unlikely.
Bill
