Re: hash, xhash: modernize

[Jim Meyering]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 6:07 PM Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net> wrote:
> [I wrote this two or so days ago, but see now somehow I failed to send it]
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 2:58 PM Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
> > It has been reported today that looking at the 'hash' module made Marc guess
> > incorrectly what is desired coding style and terminology in Gnulib.
>
> I do not desire to standardize on the coding style suggested by these
> diffs, so perhaps you should say "desired by some".
>
> 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).
>
> I disagree with the premise that hash_delete should be renamed. That's
> an API-breaking change.
>
>
> > 1) regarding where to documented exported functions of a module
> >    <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-10/msg00050.html>
> > 2) regarding C++ interoperability,
> > 3) regarding terminology ("delete" vs. "remove")
> >    <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2020-10/msg00091.html>
> >
> > Here are proposed patches to modernize the 'hash' and 'xhash' modules in
> > this respect.

That said, I will not object to your normalizing diffs.