You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ian Holsman <Ia...@cnet.com> on 2001/05/29 22:50:22 UTC
RE: More Migrations into APR/APR-UTIL
Hi.
is there a reason why ap_ind, ap_rind, and ap_strchr* type functions are in httpd.h instead
of in the apr/strings and changed to apr_ ?
should I submit a patch for this?
--
Ian Holsman
Performance Measurement & Analysis
415-364-8608
Re: More Migrations into APR/APR-UTIL
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 06:52:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Ian Holsman" <Ia...@cnet.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:50 PM
>
> > Hi.
> > is there a reason why ap_ind, ap_rind, and ap_strchr* type functions are in httpd.h instead
> > of in the apr/strings and changed to apr_ ?
>
> Laziness? Lack of time? Motivation? Oversight? Perhaps simply to invite others to
> participate with low hanging fruit :-)
Right.
> > should I submit a patch for this?
>
> If you take the time to doc it, we would love it :-)
Actually, I would ask that we just delete ap_ind and ap_rind. They're bogus
since they are just stupid little covers over strchr(). They originate from
the deep bowels of history before strchr() was readily available (and
optimized on most platforms).
Toss 'em I say.
(yes, I've seen your posted patch; more comments on that)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: More Migrations into APR/APR-UTIL
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Ian Holsman" <Ia...@cnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:50 PM
> Hi.
> is there a reason why ap_ind, ap_rind, and ap_strchr* type functions are in httpd.h instead
> of in the apr/strings and changed to apr_ ?
Laziness? Lack of time? Motivation? Oversight? Perhaps simply to invite others to
participate with low hanging fruit :-)
> should I submit a patch for this?
If you take the time to doc it, we would love it :-)
Bill