[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NSPathUtilities Patch - TOC

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: NSPathUtilities Patch - TOC
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:08:48 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

Sheldon Gill wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:12, David Ayers wrote:

Sheldon Gill wrote:

+ifeq ($(GNUSTEP_TARGET_OS), mingw32)
+Win32Support.h \

The only effect of adding these headers to ADD_HEADERS is that they will
get installed (made public).  Now scanning through the other patches, I
don't see a header file that depends on this, only NSPathUtilities.m.
So unless you have a good reason to make them public, I'd strongly
suggest to not add these to ADD_HEADERS and keep them private.

The reason I did this was to make the headers available to -gui and -back. They're supposed to be "private to core" but there currently is no clean way to do that as far as I can see. Adding external definitions to -gui and -back seems a poor way to go and replicating the code even worse. If there is a way to keep them private to core but available outside -base I'm more than happy to go with that.

Well back when we discussed the header structure change we had a similar situation wrt -gui and -back. IIRC, the consensus was that we document that not all headers in GNUstepGUI are public (i.e. private to -core) and no one should rely on their existence. At a later point in time we could introduce a 'private' subdirectory in which we were free to put -core specific headers. Which would make them:


Maybe we've now come to that time point in time. I would really want to avoid installing new 'private' headers in the main library directories.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]