From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20A1D1F4B4 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 02:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40052 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTc12-0002fg-W0 for normalperson@yhbt.net; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:32:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57486) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTc0x-0002dH-FG for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:32:11 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.217]:36073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTc0v-0008GZ-5t for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:32:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1602901925; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=PNGQE2+KaegEHKgL3IYbZGjLJ6dVE+GWfD3/MLwYkqI=; b=KC5geKwh74zG2w5w8hhNJIJybx77mvZa7fu1Ca2XWbOB6ovAnrBLJ/e1Vfu+MkJvGE P23tFlzipr5b+T3YVJujE3OtAMWxYBvRQya+tR7QT0BFpH7nrWQZT9YvHEfoscVR5rZh zJeRm/TDRdNfBtDfGPGbAXDoah+Lw28/meqid1J0bpI8laI9aLbHPGxSfm8VF4Tl97ZL mT2NcCb/BTYMhDURne3Si6S7qzU1XpcyuFfj8N55+FG3TV0iLXrkcgkU4ejD25VXQOld jp7Ji3BFRmXxqA99jxyiGrY6zHWT7VCqMGT91pZvsNKLFc8pliUwvjrcDh2iEPToQreu MTbg== X-RZG-AUTH: ":Ln4Re0+Ic/6oZXR1YgKryK8brlshOcZlIWs+iCP5vnk6shH+AHjwLuWOGaf0yJVW" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from bruno.haible.de by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.2.1 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id R01daaw9H2W1LU1 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (curve X9_62_prime256v1 with 256 ECDH bits, eq. 3072 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:32:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Bruno Haible To: bug-gnulib@gnu.org Subject: Re: hash, xhash: modernize Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 04:32:00 +0200 Message-ID: <6193370.PZs99lbhWa@omega> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-189-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20035228.V94roVDRE2@omega> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: none client-ip=81.169.146.217; envelope-from=bruno@clisp.org; helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/16 22:32:05 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -23 X-Spam_score: -2.4 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.253, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jim Meyering Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: "bug-gnulib" Hi Jim, > > I tried to make it clear the last time we discussed this (long ago!) > > that I prefer to keep certain comments very near the function > > definition (and implementation). Yes, I sort of remembered this. Therefore I asked for objections, and put you in CC. > > I disagree with the premise that hash_delete should be renamed. That's > > an API-breaking change. Yes, it's an API change. I applied the usual procedure for API changes in gnulib: add the new API, then wait for more than a year, before the old API can be removed. > That said, I will not object to your normalizing diffs. I'm confused now. Which of the three patches, or which parts of them, do you wish to see reverted? Bruno