Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Implementing functions in header files? Is that an acceptable
approach? At the moment there are just a few of them, but with time
the number may grow.
For the typemaps, I'd say yes. In C++ it is accepted practice
to define short *inline* functions in header files. In C the practice
is somewhat suspect, because the "inline" semantics aren't always reliable
(lots of pre-C99 compilers, including gcc [1]). In this circumstance the function symbols could wind up as globals, so folks building shared
libraries might wind up with symbol collisions. However, the vast majority of the XS code is for module creation, where symbol collisions between modules are a common, managable problem for the OS. In fact,
AIUI we're already relying on that by providing a few common symbols in both mod_perl.so and APR.so.
OK, but because they are just a few of them and they are small and most likely not going to change, may be it's better to dup them in apreq to reduce complexity and mess? Later we may come up with some better solutions?
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
