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

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
>
> Can't we insert that magic variable automatically using some
> #includ/#define tricks ?
>
> So that people need just to recompile, but the result has the variable
> nonetheless ?

We thought of that. The problem is some new-style functions do not need
to call any macros.

--
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