Erik Hofman wrote: > > Hi, > > Today i have taken some time to take a look at the SimGear code and > decided it might be time to create a new class definition. > > I'm not sure this is the right time to discuss about it. But then again, > I always have the feeling it might not be the right time. ;-) > > This is a definition which i feel refelcts the layout of Simgear the > best. It is not something which should be implemented before next week > or even the next release. I have the feeling that it is something for > after the 0.8.0 release of FlightGear. > > If anybody has any suggestions or comments please let me know, so i > could ask Curtis to publish the best release somewhere on the website > (just as a confrontation) ;-) > > If things have settled down (and implementing has begun) I was planning > API documentation in html/what_ever form, which could make life easier > for new developers. > > Erik >
Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I propose we use namespaces. Perhaps a top level SimGear namespace with second level namespaces corresponding to the major functional divisions, as you've outlined. I think we should eliminate the Misc group as well. I've been using the Boost libraries (http://www.boost.org) for some time now and that is what they do. Portability is one of Boost's goals. I also wouldn't mind the opportunity to refactor the compiler configuration stuff similar to how Boost has done it. Cheers, Bernie _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
