On 2/13/06, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On 2/13/06, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It would make sense for mainstream APR to revise this API, adding the pool
> >>parameter. Do you know if IBM has proposed that to the APR developers (or are
> >>likely to)? Not that we will be able to rely on it for a long time yet, but it
> >>should happen anyway.
> >
> > No, they have not proposed it, and even if we wanted to change it we
> > can't do so until APR 2.0.
>
> Is there no API revision mechanism, like in Subversion we would introduce
> apr_poll2() and deprecate apr_poll() ?
Well, that could certainly be done, but historically it doesn't seem
to happen very often.
> >>(If anyone wants a (miserable) laugh, take a look at the doc string for
> >>apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout():
> >
> > Ha. That is amusing. Will fix.
>
> Oh, thanks, Garrett; I was just starting to subscribe to the APR mailing list
> in order to post a note about this and a couple of other lesser doc string
> improvements that I've noted recently. If you're in the mood for it, this is
> what I was going to send:
I'll look at getting these dealt with, thanks.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 13 23:48:54 2006