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). Pros: 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. Cons: 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 > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part