Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> What
>>> is the problem with one header?
>> The problem with one header is it will (in the limit) refer to every
>> type defined in all Subversion libraries: a big monolithic lump that
>
> Gah! Yeah, you're right.
>
> Alrighty... well, let's at least get the SVN_DEPRECATED into the
> declarations. That's pretty cool.
>
> Solving the type issues... urgh.
>
> An intermediate easy solution: move all deprecated declarations to the
> *bottom* of the header file. Anybody have an issue with that?
>
> I'm okay with an svn_deprecated.h that contains as many deprecated
> functions as possible, but leaves behind things that need special
> types. It is a bit messier since some deprecated things will remain,
> and some will move. But that doesn't really bother me. Thoughts?
I admit to not following this thread, but having come into it now, I'm
scratching my head and trying to figure what problem is being solved.
Trying to prevent folks from using deprecated functions? That's cool --
SVN_DEPRECATED macro is a great idea. But please don't further churn the
code (and seriously kink the annotation metadata) by moving declarations
from their current locations.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-08-19 15:15:38 CEST