On Wednesday 01 December 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Did anyone else wonder about ap_expr_eval_ctx and ap_expr and > wonder why there is a missing _t? I certainly don't read ap_expr > and think "oh yea, that would be a type".
I guess I took ap_expr because it was called ssl_expr originally. I have no problem with renaming, but we should collect everything that needs renaming and do it in one go. So we add _t to these: ap_expr ap_expr_eval_ctx ap_expr_parse_ctx What about these? Add a _t, too? ap_expr_lookup_parms ap_expr_lookup_fn Or should it be apr_expr_lookup_func (we have ap_in_filter_func, etc.). And should the enum ap_expr_node_op be ap_expr_node_op_e?
