[gmpi] Re: conventions opinions

On Monday 07 March 2005 22.48, Koen Tanghe wrote:
> On Monday, March 07, 2005 5:49 AM [GMT+1=CET],
> Tim Hockin <xxxthockin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 09:28:51PM -0700, Mike Berry wrote:
> >> I would prefer that we not have files with .inl and .tpl 
extensions.
> >> These should be .h or .hpp (whichever we choose) with appropriate 
names.
> >> This way they are recognized as standard header file types.
> >
> > Why do people break the inlines out of the headers?
> 
> Because some people want as few implementation details as possible
> in the header, which merely declares the "interface" (not in the COM
> sense ;-)) to your class. I guess it's a matter of "information
> hiding".

Well, that's a good point - and I generally agree with the idea of 
keeping the documentation and the code as closely together as 
possible. (Out-of-sync documentation is one major PITA!)

But what's wrong with just putting that stuff in other headers, using 
the standard extensions...? I don't like messing with conventions 
that all sorts of tools - and people - rely on.


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
|  Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia.  |
| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
   --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: