On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:25:40PM +0100, Chris Webb wrote: > Szabolcs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 9/16/07, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except for people applying multiple patch on the now same and uniq file. > > > Everything will be fuzzy. > > > > that's why you should put your modifications in a separate .c file if > > possible > > Hmm. Speaking personally, I think including a .c file in a header file is > a stylistically hideous hack---something I could never bring myself to do > in public! Patches which aren't just additional layouts or convenience > functions will probably non-trivially touch existing code anyway.
It's definately a stylistic hack. But I can't think of a more simple way to allow access to all dwm-stuff without the need to hack together yet another .h file and patch config.mk accordingly - and to declare all variables and functions as extern's - which does the same in the end, but in a more complicate way. > However, I suspect maintaining a local tree descended from a single > upstream dwm.c will be nicer than descending from multiple file dwm. In > particular, noise from variables moving from static to extern (e.g. in > taglayouts and pertag where previously local structures suddenly need > initialising) in patches goes away. > > One question: why do you explicitly declare all dwm.c functions static > given that you only have a single source file anyway? Yeah, that's unnecessary. I remove that - it will also consume less disk space then ;) Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
