"Clemens Zeidler" <clemens.zeidler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 05.07.2010, 19:58 Uhr, schrieb Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > It's not just about coding style, it's also about usability, > > compatibility, and clobbering the global name space (which our > > current > > ACPI.h does as well, though). > > In order to ensure backwards compatibility, it's a good idea not to > > use > > upstream things that you don't control directly in a public header. > > However, why not keep the rest of the file private, and do not > > export > > it in ACPI.h, ie. only add the functions to the module? As long as > > it's > > only used internally, there is nothing wrong in using them > > directly. > Yes thats true, I think in this case we can also clean up the haiku > ACPI.h > header a bit and refer to include the original private headers > instead. > I thought about to make the acpi calls a little bit nicer, e.g. > directly > return a pointer to the correct data struct instead a void pointer, > this > would not be possible then but it is also not really necessary. It would still be possible, if wanted. You can simply use opaque types, like it's done in device_manager.h. Bye, Axel.