On 12/13/07, Iain Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I depended on the existing flag, maintaining existing behavior of > > apr_os_file_put would be tough. > > Hmm .. I think I'm confusing something else here. It doesn't seem correct.
Oh right, I remember now: If apr_os_file_put defaults to no cleanup, and _ex does cleanup by default, and later on _ex becomes the default - is it ok that the new api has a behavioural change with the same signature? It seems very fragile: how would anyone notice? I'd be happy enough to change all the register_cleanup bool's to flags, but what should I do with apr_os_pipe_ex? leave it inconsistent or fix? should the fixed one be called _ex_ex etc..? --Iain
