Is apr_bucket_brigade_t a little wordy? Perhaps apr_brigade_t says it all...
Bill At 02:47 PM 10/7/2003, Cliff Woolley wrote: >On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> >>Dumb Q perhaps; for APR-UTIL 1.0 don't we want to change: >> >> >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket apr_bucket; >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade apr_bucket_brigade_t; >> >>etc >> >> >> >>to follow our convention: >> >> >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket_t apr_bucket_t; >> >>typedef struct apr_bucket_brigade_t apr_bucket_brigade_t; >> >>etc... > >It just doesn't sound as nice. :-} > >It's also gonna be a bit of a headache for the guy who has to go back >through and wrap things to 80 cols again, but oh well, whatever. > >--Cliff
