Re: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language names

> I didn't want to do this during development, but now that there are no
> more old-style internal functions left, I suppose you could make a good
> argument that this is worth doing for old-style dynamically loaded
> functions. Will put it on the to-do list.
>
> Are people satisfied with the notion of requiring an info function
> to go with each dynamically loaded new-style function? If so, I'll
> start working on that too.

I think we need to balance portability with inconvenence for new users.

I think mixing new/old function types in the same object file is pretty
rare, and the confusion for programmers of having to label every
function seems much more error-prone.

I would support a single symbol to mark the entire object file. In
fact, I would require old-style functions to add a symbol, and have
new-style functions left alone.

There are not that many functions out there, are there? People are
having to recompile their C files anyway for the upgrade, don't they?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026