I'm wondering how the group would react to refactoring some of APR 2.0
to either offer inline code for many of our heavily consumed functions,
or offering inline + fn implementations alongside one another?
Would it still be necessary in this day and age to support C compilers
that do not support
+1
As long as we don’t require complete/100% C99 at this time.
Microsoft only intends to implement the C99 subset that is also part of the
recent C++ specs (or just easy to do) in Visual Studio, and in most cases it
already does in the most recent version.
But talking specifically
If we are serious about having a serious update to APR, I
would recommend that we use more up-to-date data structures,
patterns and algorithms than those in apr1. For example,
Greg's pocore mini lib is an example of the types of improvements
we should consider.
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:31 PM,
On 20.11.2015 19:53, Bert Huijben wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> As long as we don’t require complete/100% C99 at this time.
>
>
>
> Microsoft only intends to implement the C99 subset that is also part of the
> recent C++ specs (or just easy to do) in Visual Studio, and in most cases it
> already does
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If we are serious about having a serious update to APR, I
> would recommend that we use more up-to-date data structures,
> patterns and algorithms than those in apr1. For example,
> Greg's pocore mini lib is an example of
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > If we are serious about having a serious update to APR, I
> > would recommend that we use more up-to-date data structures,
> > patterns and
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> > If we are serious about having a serious update to APR,
Any objections to picking this up for APR 1.next/2.0?
It seems that httpd isn't the only one who wants to be strict about
case-insensitive token string recognition, and non-POSIX char case
gets weird quickly.
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Fri, Nov 20,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Yann Ylavic
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jim Jagielski