Re: rename troublesome ltdl apis [libtool--devo--1.0--patch-275]

[Ralf Wildenhues]

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:52:06AM CEST:
> > 
> > Only the same arguments we both put forth for changing the name of
> > lt_dlcaller_register -- forced to change function footprint to avoid
> > problems with other clients' modules, which in turn suggests a good
> > reason to rename said functions to force a hard compilation failure if
> > the user doesn't upgrade the caller's semantics to match the new APIs.

Still, there is no need to rename all of the functions, unless all of
their semantics have changed.  One rename to force compilation failure
is sufficient, if the users can adapt to the rest by a source-code
compatible change.

Gary, people will simply NOT USE libltdl-2.0 if they cannot gradually
update to it easily.  Getting package authors to update is difficult
enough if they have to adapt at all, with distribution people it is much
more difficult so.

And no: do not change lt_ptr nor its advocation, up until the day that
we add support for systems where
  sizeof(void *) != sizeof(void (*)(void)).
Otherwise, there is no need.

Cheers,
Ralf