At 11:51 PM 11/24/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >> Obviously, this is skeletal. It provides that all functions are exported, >> and some simple functions may be inlined. > >I tried to snip some of this, but I couldn't. This is bogus. Your header >with the inline header needs information that is private to the APR >internals. That means that it can never be included from any file that is >public. At the end of the day, what you are describing above is >completely impossible.
Obviously it marries the app to the explicit version of APR. That is the downside of inlining otherwise innocuous operations. >> I don't believe what you suggest is portable. Of course my VC is very happy >> to parse a struct def with a pointer to an incomplete type anywhere within >> the structure, or an undefined array at the *end* of the structure. But >> since > >Will, please, that is just completely bogus. Are you honestly telling me >that you believe that there is a compiler that doesn't know how to put a >pointer to an incomplete type inside of a structure? If so, then Apache No, I'm stating that having a partially complete structure is not portable. The question of an embedded pointer to the apr_foo_internal_t isn't an issue, except that the user can allocate an apr_foo_t. Since I just got done earlier today expressing that we don't care that users can shoot themselves in the foot, I really don't have any argument to that side of your proposal. >2.0 isn't portable to that platform. What I am suggesting is 100% >identical to what Apache does by putting an apr_file_t inside the >request_rec. Add to that, we are ALREADY doing what I suggest, this model >was used in apr_poll_t, and it works just find. And it implies that apr_foo_t could be allocated by the user, although they cannot create the pointer to apr_foo_internal_t. Let me digest what you are proposing so I can comment on it further. >I am not going to respond to the rest of this message, it is nothing but >flame bait. Glad we are having a discussion and not a debate, then. You are suggesting two structures. I spelled out in the prior message and a paragraph above why that was a half-way solution. The real answer is a partially complete structure; which is not ANSI C or any flavor thereof. >We are still waiting for the real labor to begin. I has been two days, >and I am wasting time on the computer. I hear that ... no rest for the expectant mother -or- father :-) Bill
