chore(linux): Rename KBP to CORE 〽️ #9794
Conversation
User Test ResultsTest specification and instructions User tests are not required Test Artifacts
|
github-actions
bot
added
windows/
common/
core/
common/include/kmx_file.h
Outdated
| @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ typedef KMX_WORD __attribute__((aligned(1))) KMX_WORD_unaligned; | |||
| #define KMX_WORD_unaligned KMX_WORD | |||
| #endif | |||
|
|
|||
| #ifdef KMN_KBP | |||
| #ifdef KMN_CORE | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Everywhere else the prefix is KM_CORE, do we want to use the same, and some thing after to make it clear it's a preprocessor control, e.g. KM_CORE_LIBRARY?
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| #if defined KMN_KBP_STATIC | ||
| #if defined KMN_CORE_STATIC |
| #define KMN_API _kmn_tag_fn(_kmn_static_flag) | ||
| #define KMN_DEPRECATED_API _kmn_tag_fn(_kmn_deprecated_flag _kmn_and _kmn_static_flag) | ||
| #elif defined KMN_KBP_EXPORTING | ||
| #elif defined KMN_CORE_EXPORTING |
| #ifndef KMN_CORE | ||
| #define KMN_CORE |
| @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ namespace kbp | |||
| * updateing the state as required. | |||
| * | |||
| * @param state An opaque pointer to a state object | |||
| * @return km_core_status `KM_CORE_STATUS_OK`: On success. Else KB_KBP_ error code | |||
| * @return km_core_status `KM_CORE_STATUS_OK`: On success. Else KB_CORE_ error code | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * @return km_core_status `KM_CORE_STATUS_OK`: On success. Else KB_CORE_ error code | |
| * @return km_core_status `KM_CORE_STATUS_OK`: On success. Else KM_CORE_ error code |
| @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ | |||
| VALUE "InternalName", "Keyman Core" | |||
| VALUE "LegalCopyright", "© SIL International" | |||
| VALUE "LegalTrademarks", "" | |||
| VALUE "OriginalFilename", "KMNKBP0-0.DLL" | |||
| VALUE "OriginalFilename", "KMNCORE0-0.DLL" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| VALUE "OriginalFilename", "KMNCORE0-0.DLL" | |
| VALUE "OriginalFilename", "KEYMANCORE0-0.DLL" |
I also wonder about the need to append 0-0, surely we should be using the actual version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The next PR (#9793) updates the version number. But I don't think we want to use 17 as version number since this is the Core API version which usually doesn't change in breaking ways between Keyman versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True. We just need to have a documented version number for the API then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point. Created #9801.
|
Changes in this pull request will be available for download in Keyman version 17.0.196-alpha |
Part of #9733.
@keymanapp-test-bot skip