Right. I didn't say it was a problem in practice. I did say that it was a terrible piece of code, and since this list often refers people to "look at the code", it should be fixed, IMHO. It is a _bad_ and _broken_ example of how to loop through a brigade.
Yah, but we don't publicize it: which is why I think your subject clearly overreaches. We even have a comment that says this is bad. (But, we're also not perfect and it should be corrected.) I'm guessing we never scrutinized NORMALIZE_BRIGADE when we tossed APR_BRIGADE_FOREACH. *shrug*
So, I don't think most people would latch on to that code as our canonical example of iterating through a brigade.
As for C99 extensions, I understand that it is not available on all platforms, but why can't new code checked in include the 'restrict' keyword? Just like there is an APR_INLINE macro, why isn't there an APR_RESTRICT macro indirection? Would a patch implementing such in APR be accepted for APR 1.0?
APR 1.0 is already frozen for its 1.0 release. While APR_INLINE has a legitimate purpose for us, I just don't see the same for APR_RESTRICT. It seems to be another case of the C99 folks adding needless bloat. -- justin
