Re: On the cost of libraries
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com>, Drazen Kacar <dave arsdigita com>, Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>, Gnome Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: On the cost of libraries
- Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 18:51:56 -0700
On 02Sep2001 09:22PM (-0400), Owen Taylor wrote:
> Well, if you don't mind lots of gtkwidgetP.h type files this works
> fine. If my non-exported functions are methods on a widget, I'd really
> like them in the main header for the widget... after all, the headers
> shouldn't be the primary form of documentation.
In most libraries I hack on actively (gnome-vfs, bonobo-activation,
eel, libnautilus*, etc) there's already always a separate private
header. I think this is a bit cleaner, and helps those of us who do
use the headers as docs somewhat. (We usually call them foo-private.h
rather than fooP.h).
It's certainly OK for the Gtk+ convention on this to be different,
> The normal approach on windows is something on the order of:
> G_EXTERN void my_function_to_export ();
> Rather ugly, but certainly explicit.
That seems like unnecessary header uglification, though it would
probably be easy to parse.
] [Thread Prev