Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Tim Ruehsen <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Cool. Is the idn2_* intentional? I was thinking of providing >>> compatibility in a way that sources do not need to be changed at all >>> (i.e., provide an idna.h, and compatibility idna_* functions - which >>> could also be wrappers). It would be very nice if we could compile >>> programs that use libidn, using libidn2 without any changes (at least >>> for the majority of them). >> The naming is intentional because >> 1. What about apps providing idna2003 *and* idna2008 (libidn and libidn2) ? >> 2. idn2_ is the namespace for libidn2 (mainly because of 1) >> We could use a define being set before #include <idn2.h>, e.g. >> IDN2_LIBIDN_API. >> WDYT ? > > I'd expect the idna2003 + idna2008 apps to be rare, but you got a > point. I think the define approach is reasonable.
Agreed. In practice I believe we will see significant number of applications that will link to both libraries because of indirect dependencies. It will easily take 5-10 years before applications stop link to libidn in the supported released GNU/Linux distributions. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Help-libidn mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-libidn
