[openbeosnetteam] Re: header files
- From: Peter Moore <peter@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:04:22 +1100
sorry for my lack of feedback recently.
i would be in favour of creating new headers which follow the posix
standards.
i'll also read all the emails i have missed and test the exe you guys have
created.
keep up the good work!
peter
*******************************************
Peter Moore
peter@xxxxxxxxx
http://beos.loved.com/
ICQ 926967 (old) 95022055 (new - Oct 18, 2000)
*******************************************
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> since we are building a BeOS clone (binary and source compatible), all
>> header files have to have the same name - so why not just use them=3F
>> The higher structures also have to be the same.
>
>Well, the Be header files are terrible. Not their contents, but the
>location of the definitions etc is so far from posix...
>
>> Instead of redefining ntohl() and friends, why not just including <
>> ByteOrder.h>=3F
>
>Well, I'd rather actually create new headers that follow the posix type
>standards, but that would mean having new header files that totally oppose
>Be's offerings, so really I'm not sure.
>
>> Is anyone else but mbuf.c using the macros that are defined in mbuf.h=3F
>> If not, isn't it better to put them in the .c file=3F
>
>No, mbuf.h and mbuf.c are OK I think.
>>
>> (BTW I really don't want to offend you, David, I am just asking :-)
>
>OK, not offended. We need to think about this :) To be honest at present
>what I've been doing is getting code in place that works, but may not be
>terribly pretty. Once I add a few more bits it'll be time to stop and
>consider the overall architecture :)
>
>BTW, I assume this means that you've got testread working?
>
>david
>
Other related posts:
