Re: [RFA/base] GSObjCRuntime (Part 2: NO_DEPRECATED macro)

[David Ayers]

Thanks for the reply!

I was just preparing a partial patch so that you can "see" what I mean. :-)

I'll fix it up and post it as soon as I've decided whether to use GSC or 
not... right now I'm leaning towards using it *only* if both GSObjC 
*and* GSC versions would exist ie. where we make the distinction between 
+load safe/+load unsafe. (So in the case of the GS*Method* functions, 
they would remain GS prefixed as they would have no GSObjC 
counterparts.)  I'll also add comments in the documentation about those 
functions which *should* be load safe. (The first patch will include 
only the new functions. The updated documentation on existing load safe 
functions will be posted later.)

Once it's posted,  I'll give you a couple of days to object (or approve 
:-) ).  If you do object, but simply just don't have the time to explain 
it, feel free to just send me an unadorned "I have reservations" 
privatly and I'll hold back until you find time to explain.

Cheers,
David

Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:

> OK ... but I don't think using the GS rather than GSObjC prefix is a 
> good convention to indicate that ... there are a *lot* of GS prefixed 
> functions elsewhere which are certainly not +load safe and have 
> nothing to do with runtime manipulation.
>
> I suggest using another prefix ...  perhaps GSC ?  Alternatively, 
> don't bother with a naming convention, but explicitly state that the 
> functions are +load safe in the documentation (ie in the comments 
> before each of them).
>
> Sorry for the *extremely* slow response ... I'm very busy at work at 
> the moment, and haven't really had time to look at non-work-related 
> email.