speaking of naming conventions

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Did anyone else wonder about ap_expr_eval_ctx and ap_expr and wonder why
there is a missing _t?  I certainly don't read ap_expr and think "oh yea,
that would be a type".

Re: speaking of naming conventions

[Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>]

On Wednesday 01 December 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Did anyone else wonder about ap_expr_eval_ctx and ap_expr and
> wonder why there is a missing _t?  I certainly don't read ap_expr
> and think "oh yea, that would be a type".

I guess I took ap_expr because it was called ssl_expr originally. I 
have no problem with renaming, but we should collect everything that
needs renaming and do it in one go.

So we add _t to these:

ap_expr
ap_expr_eval_ctx
ap_expr_parse_ctx

What about these? Add a _t, too?

ap_expr_lookup_parms
ap_expr_lookup_fn

Or should it be apr_expr_lookup_func (we have ap_in_filter_func, 
etc.).

And should the enum ap_expr_node_op be ap_expr_node_op_e?