Re: Dumb identifier name question

As a related issue, what would you think of moving all function argument
names as declared in .h to their own namespace? I ask this because I'm
getting tired of seeing warning spew when I turn on -Wshadow (mostly
because of the libc "index" function).

 1) Could be done with a perl script
 2) Won't incur any code changes, as it would it only be changing the
header prototypes, not the actual implementations.
 3) Gtk-doc, et al, should still work, since gtk-doc statements are in
sources, not headers.

 1) Would cause unnecessary header churn, which could be adverse for CVS
history, etc.
 2) Might break programs which read in the Gtk+ headers and do clever
things with them, such as bindings that don't use .defs. The only such
program I am aware of is the Gtk# binding generator, and I am a
contributor to that.
 3) As you said, would break consistency with the old style.

-- Rachel

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 16:18, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Basically, it's been this way since 1996, and nobody has run
> into a non-theoretical complaint, so we'd rather not:
>  - break consistency between existing code and new code
> Or:
>  - change 600,000 lines of code to do something different
> Since we maintain our namespace in these cases, the chances of collision
> are pretty tiny -- larger for GLib (with the _G_ namespace) than for
> Pango (_PANGO_( or GTK+ (_GTK_), but still small.
> > I realise the practical chances of this causing a problem
> > are small, but then again the effort required to fix it is also basically
> > janitorial.
> Something can be "basically janitorial" and still a huge job. 
> Not worth doing in the absence of concrete problems.
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]