Re: Export bits of the demangler's internal interface

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:08:16AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> > > I think the third is really the best choice.  We can just pick a
> > > longer prefix, like cpd3_ or something, for the functions, to replace
> > > the current d_ prefix.
> > 
> > OK.  How about cp_v3_d_?
> 
> I dunno, why make the prefix longer than necessary?  What does the d_
> really add here?

It makes more sense to me.  C++, v3 ABI, demangler.

> I know you want to get this in, but I think there would be some
> benefit to thinking about what a good interface would look like,
> rather than just using the code which is there, which was never
> intended to be an interface at all.

Yes, but it turns out that it was an almost perfect interface for what
I needed - witness the total size of the changes I had to make, which
is actually quite small.  If I had to design an interface for this
(something which I was never especially good at), it would look pretty
much the same.  If there's something you'd prefer, you'll have to
suggest it yourself :)

I'm not in that much of a rush; it's just easy for me to accompany
suggestions with patches, thanks to the wonders of GNU sed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer