You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@corinthia.apache.org by Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> on 2015/02/19 13:57:23 UTC
The DF prefix
As you’re all aware, this is used pretty extensively throughout the codebase.
The reason I named all the core functions like this was to avoid name clashes with other libraries, and with applications (e.g. for things like substring, HashTable etc).
However, if we can figure out the right compile-time options to control symbol export, such that only public API functions are exposed to other libraries or programs that use DocFormats, then these symbols will not be seen, and there will be no chance of them clashing with names that might be used by the application.
What are your thoughts on this? Should the prefix go or stay?
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: The DF prefix
Posted by Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org>.
BTW - we’d need to keep the prefix for public API functions and types. This question just concerns code that is purely internal to the library.
—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org
PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
> On 19 Feb 2015, at 7:57 pm, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> As you’re all aware, this is used pretty extensively throughout the codebase.
>
> The reason I named all the core functions like this was to avoid name clashes with other libraries, and with applications (e.g. for things like substring, HashTable etc).
>
> However, if we can figure out the right compile-time options to control symbol export, such that only public API functions are exposed to other libraries or programs that use DocFormats, then these symbols will not be seen, and there will be no chance of them clashing with names that might be used by the application.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Should the prefix go or stay?
>
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmkelly@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
Re: The DF prefix
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 February 2015 at 13:57, Peter Kelly <pm...@apache.org> wrote:
> As you’re all aware, this is used pretty extensively throughout the
> codebase.
>
> The reason I named all the core functions like this was to avoid name
> clashes with other libraries, and with applications (e.g. for things like
> substring, HashTable etc).
>
> However, if we can figure out the right compile-time options to control
> symbol export, such that only public API functions are exposed to other
> libraries or programs that use DocFormats, then these symbols will not be
> seen, and there will be no chance of them clashing with names that might be
> used by the application.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Should the prefix go or stay?
>
go away except for the API.
I would like though, to be able to identify the next level (filter core
etc) in the function name so I know where to go searching.
rgds
jan i.
>
> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> pmkelly@apache.org
>
> PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
>
>