On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:19:37PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:38:46PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > Please comment if you think there is a better way to do this. I'm > > reluctant to rename the macros since Vincent pointed out this would > > break patches. > > Well, to be fair, M_ is a pretty crappy prefix to use in a project's > macros. Not that using them in system header files is much better... > But maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to bite the bullet: Do a > find/replace of all such macros and change the prefix to MUTT_ > instead. With 1.6 freshly out it may not be a bad time to do that, > and FWIW if you're ever going to do this, there's no better time > than the present. As time goes on, it'll only get harder.
I think you have a point. What I'd like to do, though, is include this patch in the stable branch so I can push it with 1.6.1 (hopefully next week). Then we can back the patch out of the default branch when a course for renaming is agreed on and ready. > I could probably be pursuaded to write a script to do that find and > replace, and maybe even run it to generate a patch... If you're up for taking this on, it would be great. Before we get going, let's just take a quick opinion check poll with the other contributors. David, Brendan, Vincent (and anyone else), does the prefix 'MUTT_' sound reasonable, or is there another prefix that would be better? I know we use the MUTT_ prefix for a few other things, so if we use that, we'll have to be extra careful we aren't renaming a flag to something already used. However, otherwise I think it's reasonable, and only three characters longer than M_. Still, we could also use something like 'WOOF_' to be sure of no overlap. :-) -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA http://www.8t8.us/configs/gpg-key-transition-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
