On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey all, > > I have heard today that in Eina, all the .h's and .x's should be located > in the "src/include" dir, even if they are *not* shipped. > > That's ugly, stupid and confusing. > > There's no reason why to put headers or include files that should not be > shipped in that directory for the following reasons (and more): > 1. It's not needed: people were smart enough to "invent" the file > extensions conventions, which imply that .h are includes and .c are > source files (and .x are included source files) there's no need for > another layer of conventions. The include dir should mean: includes that > are shipped, that is, includes that are visible to the user. > 2. It's confusing: because putting only shipped includes in the > "include" directory is pretty much the standard (even in e btw, just not > in eina), people will take a look there and be surprised some of the > includes are not shipped and will send patches to "fix it" and we'll > just get a bunch of internal includes shipped. > > If there's a rationale, I would really like to hear it, because ATM it > just makes zero sense. To be consistent with the other EFL, we would move all the content of src/include in src/lib. I'm not against that. Vincent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
