[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gnuradio component directory structure

From: Tom Rondeau
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gnuradio component directory structure
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:51:52 -0400

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Ben Hilburn <address@hidden> wrote:
Restarting the discussion for a small point:

> 1) It separates publicly installed headers vs private headers in the lib
> directory.

I think this, honestly, is the best argument for having the separate directory.  In terms of project navigation, I think this is really helpful, and makes sense.

> 2) Its a cleaner separation of API and implementation.

> 3) Its easier to point doxygen to the public headers and keep it from
>  parsing everything in "lib".

This is the point I wanted to comment on.  I've worked on a number of projects that point Doxygen only to include/, and projects that point to both include/ and lib/.  Honestly, and while this is obviously highly subjective and easily swapped back and forth for anyone that cares, I actually prefer including the lib/ directory as well.  There is usually a whole lot of stuff in the the implementation files that aren't declared in the headers, and a lot of it is usually extremely helpful (at least to me) when I'm hacking around.

Again, this is obviously preference.  If you only want Doxygen to document the public GNURadio API, then obviously you only want to point it to include.  For actually developing _inside_ of GNURadio, however, I often find having the lib/ documentation to be very helpful.


I agree with everything you've said here. I think we'll be including both. There's some maintenance work on Doxygen that I need to sort out soon, so making sure we're picking up everything that we want is going to be part of it.


On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Tom Rondeau <address@hidden> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Martin Braun <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:04:23AM -0400, Tom Rondeau wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Martin Braun <address@hidden> wrote:
>     I'd like to point out a disadvantage to get a discussion going:
>     While you're developing, this might be an inconvenience because the
>     files are physically separated. Most IDEs/editors have many features
>     such as tagging, switching from headers to sources and vice versa, 'go
>     to file at cursor' commands etc. If half of the files are somewhere
>     else, one has to set up the editor specifically for this dir structure
>     to do all of this.
> It's a logical separation that a lot of projects use. I know that I'm a bit
> biased because my "IDE" is Emacs, but I don't recall having project files in
> different directories was a problem. Way back when I developed in Windows and
> used Visual Studio, this wasn't an issue, but that could have been due to the
> project file that VS kept.
> We haven't made it part of our official standard, but talking with both
> Johnathan and Josh last week about it, I was thinking that we would. I'm not
> sure that your argument here has quite convinced me that it'll be a problem.

To be honest,

after re-reading this, I'm not even convinced myself.
Sometimes I just like to argue :)


Always good to have the discussion. I think we're settled on the use of include directory, then.


Discuss-gnuradio mailing list

reply via email to

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