> At 9:21 PM +0300 8/8/03, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote: > > > So, the project. Someone needs to go through the configure procedure > >> and the headers and throw a PARROT_ prefix in front of all the HAS_ > >> defines we define, so we can avoid this problem. > > > >Some defines have the HAVE_ prefix. Should those be also prefixed? > > If they're being set in our configure stuff, yes.
If we add PARROT_ to HAVE_, we will end up with the PARROT_HAVE_ prefix, what IMHO is harsh. It might be alot better if we firstly had changed HAVE_ for HAS_. What do you think?
