On September 9, 2009 04:10:42 pm Derek Atkins wrote: > Hi, > > Quoting Christian Stimming <stimm...@tuhh.de>: > > Am Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 20:48 schrieb Phil Longstaff: > >> Yes, I do need to revert that change. Thanks. In fact, > >> gnc_account_get_full_name() just calls xaccAccountGetFullName(). > > > > Yes, I've seen that as well and I wondered why this is the case. > > > >> Any > >> reason I shouldn't go through all of the code and change xaccAccountXXX > >> to gnc_account_XXX (and Trans and SchedXaction and Split and ...) and > >> give us standardized naming for 2.4? > > > > If you make sure you catch really all places, even those which you don't > > compile due to your particular ./configure switches, then indeed feel > > free to change those names. > > Just be careful about doing this wholesale. There are places where > we have both xaccFooXXX and gnc_foo_xxx functions and they perform > different operations. So make sure the target function does not exist > before you rename. > > Also keep in mind you'll need to update the swig files, and all the scheme > code.. and that gnc_foo_xxx is gnc-foo-xxx in scheme. > > I'm just concerned that this is a bit late in the 2.4 release cycle to > do this change. Had you proposed it before 2.3.0 then I think it would've > been fine, but it will take time to discover broken scheme. > > Note that I'm not against this change, just concerned about the timing > and want to make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot along the way.
Yeah, you're right. I think I will try to remove some of the deprecated functions and also look into xaccFooXXX/gnc_foo_xxx pairs to see what is going on. The complete renaming will need to wait for 2.5.0. Phil _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
