On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:43:53PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote: > >On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, David Dawes wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:57:04AM -0800, Mark Vojkovich wrote: > >> >On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frank Gießler wrote: > >> > > >> >> Mark Vojkovich wrote: > >> >> > We don't care what the filenames are except for the header files. > >> >> > The only reason why we care about header files is that a driver > >> >> > might include support for both and may need both include paths. > >> >> > There's only one exported header file. I'd like to name it Xaa.h > >> >> > to match the namespace. Is it really going to be relevant on > >> >> > case-unaware systems? Which ones are those BTW? > >> >> > >> >> There is already xaa.h. Having Xaa.h included at the same time is a > >> >> no-op for OS/2, for which there are already binaries for 4.4.0 available > >> >> (I would therefore consider this a well supported platform). > >> >> > >> > > >> > Well, then I guess I could call the header file xaa2.h > >> > >> Not to be too picky, but won't this be the third version of XAA, not the > >> second? > > > > Yes, it's actually the third. Harm's was the first. I think we > >even advertised XFree86 4.x's XAA as 2.0. Would you prefer xaa3.h ? > > I was just being picky. The main thing is that the file names and the > module name don't clash on case-insensitive systems.
xaaa my sound like a nice prefix, in particular since you can shorten it to x3a, whose 3 would stand for the the third iteration of xaa ? Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
