develooper Front page | perl.perl6.internals | Postings from April 2001

Re: Perl_foo() vs foo() etc

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Bryan C. Warnock
Date:
April 11, 2001 08:02
Subject:
Re: Perl_foo() vs foo() etc
Message ID:
01041111002801.01160@Idiocy
Okay, I *really* may have missed something....

Do you mean this:

/* Allow us to refer to _Perl_foo() as just foo() inside */
#define _Perl_foo foo

or this:

/* We're foo(), other folks can call us _Perl_foo() */
#define foo _Perl_foo

The second is what I read from your list, although the first seems like more 
what you're talking about.


> > > *) All exported perl functions and functionlike things have a Perl_
> > > prefix *) All exported data and dataish thigns have a PL_ prefix
> > > *) All private routines have #defines to give them a _Perl_ prefix
> > > *) All private data have #defines to give them a _PL_ prefix
> > > *) Internal data and functions get referenced via the unqualified names
> > >
> > > That way the internals can use the utility function str_to_UTF(), while
> > > the world would see it (or, rather, not see it) as _Perl_str_to_UTF().
> > > Less typing for private things, and more for the much smaller (and
> > > probably not used internally) set of public functions.
>

-- 
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@capita.com

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About