On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Daniel Rall <dlr@finemaltcoding.com> writes:
> > >> * subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c
> > >> (apr_dir_is_empty): Removed inline comment asking about the
> > >
> > >Not directly related to this commit, but does anyone know why we have a
> > >function with an apr_ name as an internal static? I think it should just
> > >be moved inside svn_io_is_empty().
> >
> > In r2404, Karl Fogel says:
> >
> > * subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c
> > (apr_dir_is_empty): Replaces apr_check_dir_empty, declare static.
> > Document in APR style, in preparation for move to APR. Rewrite
> > body, now check for "." and ".." explicitly. Change calling
> > discipline. I love saying that: "calling discipline". There, I
> > said it again.
> > (svn_io_dir_empty): New function, wrapper for above.
>
> Heh, and this is proof of why we shouldn't do things that way.
>
> Instead, I should have given it an "svn_" prefix, and mentioned in its
> doc string what was going on. All of which is now done in r14457.
>
Yeah, ad now it is just a little confusing that it looks lie a function of
our API, but is internal. I don't think it's a big prlblem; we control our
own namespace. Why do you use prefixes at all for a static function?
Regards,
//Peter - who maybe has too much time for details
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 27 08:29:32 2005