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 ?

-----------
Hannu