On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:54:34PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Martin v. L?wis wrote: > > > Guido van Rossum schrieb: > >> Maybe this should be done in a more systematic fashion? E.g. by > >> giving all "internal" header files a "py_" prefix? > > > > Yet another alternative would be to move all such header files into a > > py/ directory, so you would refer to them as > > > > #include "py/object.h" > > > > Any preferences? > > I think I prefer this, although I'd choose "python/object.h" just for > explicitness. But if you go with a header prefix, then the shorter > "py_" is fine. > > FWIW, I tried to do a quick grep around some of our code and I found > that the only "internal" header we include is structmember.h. Why is > that not part of Python.h again? > > -Barry
+1 on using the python/*.h subdirectory. +0.2 on renaming only the whined about .h file. +0.1 on using a py_ prefix for all .h files. I prefer the python/*.h subdirectory method. py_ in the filename is ugly and annoying even if it does solve the immediate issue. Other packages that install header files commonly put them all within a named subdirectory. -Greg
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
