William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
WORSE you just f***ed up the user who chose a different order for their includes, which sucks to be them. Please don't do such nonsense to them.
Belay that assessment, I see you snuck this in after the header protect macro ;-) It's still not acceptable to add apr_ino_t until 1.3.0 no matter how it's hidden. I had gone so far as to offer no outward facing explanation of the 1.3.0 solution to win32 handles, but they could pass a constant which would achieve the effect. That too was vetoed, so we simply won't add a new interface no matter how cloaked it is :) Bill
