Re: GLib plans for next cycle

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:58 +0200, Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> TBH, I don't think the name alone will prevent misuse; in particular
> so as the "glib" prefix is no obvious internal-only hint (e.g.
> glib_check_version() is not private either).
> Wouldn't a note in the API docs suffice?

We have a few functions like glib_gettext() that are glib internal API
(enforced by not being defined in an installed header).

I envision this falling into the same category.


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