[gmpi] Re: conventions opinions

On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:01 PM [GMT+1=CET],
Jack O'Quin <xxxjoq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> David Olofson <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> 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:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> Exactly.  Nothing wrong with well-structured header files, but please
> use the standard .h and .hpp extensions.

Oh, no problem. .h and .hpp will be fine.
Koen


----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: