On 03/17/2011 03:05 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Mads Kiilerich <m...@kiilerich.com > That would be very consistent, but it wouldn't reflect that the > libraries have different natures: For utils it is a bad idea to use > utils.h - instead the specific utils/something.h should be used. For > for example kbd only kbd.h should be used - there is hardly any > reason to use kbd/something.h directly. > > > I agree, but sometimes architectural consistency is more important to > avoid confusion.
In this case I think it is more relevant to avoid foolish consistency (with reference to Emerson). > We could provide a utils.h without ever using it, just > to maintain that consistency. It is not so much a question of what _we_ use. This is the libraries public interface that users of the library see. The best reference documentation of a library is readable header files, and we should create and structure them so they encourage the recommened use. /Mads ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
