> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:52:06AM CEST: > > > > Only the same arguments we both put forth for changing the name of > > lt_dlcaller_register -- forced to change function footprint to avoid > > problems with other clients' modules, which in turn suggests a good > > reason to rename said functions to force a hard compilation failure if > > the user doesn't upgrade the caller's semantics to match the new APIs.
Still, there is no need to rename all of the functions, unless all of their semantics have changed. One rename to force compilation failure is sufficient, if the users can adapt to the rest by a source-code compatible change. Gary, people will simply NOT USE libltdl-2.0 if they cannot gradually update to it easily. Getting package authors to update is difficult enough if they have to adapt at all, with distribution people it is much more difficult so. And no: do not change lt_ptr nor its advocation, up until the day that we add support for systems where sizeof(void *) != sizeof(void (*)(void)). Otherwise, there is no need. Cheers, Ralf
