> From: kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]On
> Behalf Of kfogel@collab.net
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > With one set of functions, we're adding foo_depth() variants which
> > include a depth argument.
> >
> > With another set of functions, we didn't want to add foo_pool() variants
> > because that looks dumb, so we're adding foo2() variants instead.
> >
> > I would like us to be consistent.
>
> Good point. A question that impinges on this:
>
> Are we planning to keep these suffixes in 2.0? Or will we change the
> new names to the old names (just keep the new APIs) when we cross the
> 2.0 line?
I would think so. It would make much sense to have a foo2() at some
point, but not a foo(). The whole point of versioning is to not
have versions in your function names I would think ;).
> If we're going to fall back to the old names, then the "2" variants
> might make the most sense.
>
> IMHO, we should do this. By resetting our APIs back to the
> names-of-first-choice, we avoid names growing arbitrarily long (think
> 3.0).
+1.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 11 18:17:39 2004