I would suggest having one header in each module called basic.h or base_types.h or something similar which does the job of base_types.h in IMP and defines the export and namespace macros. Currently "core_exports.h" does this, but it took me a bit to find that for the namespace macros as it isn't export related.
Daniel Russel wrote: > I would suggest having one header in each module called basic.h or > base_types.h or something similar which does the job of base_types.h > in IMP and defines the export and namespace macros.
'base_types.h' seems a little odd since neither the export nor the namespace macros are types. That header is actually doing the job of IMP_config.h, so we could call it config.h, but I don't know if that's a huge improvement over the current name.
> Currently > "core_exports.h" does this, but it took me a bit to find that for the > namespace macros as it isn't export related.
I didn't want to call it exports_and_namespaces_macros.h since that would be a little unwieldy. ;) utility.h and macros.h are already taken.
Ben
On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Ben Webb wrote:
> Daniel Russel wrote: >> I would suggest having one header in each module called basic.h or >> base_types.h or something similar which does the job of base_types.h >> in IMP and defines the export and namespace macros. > > 'base_types.h' seems a little odd since neither the export nor the > namespace macros are types. That header is actually doing the job of > IMP_config.h, so we could call it config.h, but I don't know if > that's a > huge improvement over the current name. The IMP_ in IMP_config.h always seemed redundant.
> > >> Currently >> "core_exports.h" does this, but it took me a bit to find that for the >> namespace macros as it isn't export related. > > I didn't want to call it exports_and_namespaces_macros.h since that > would be a little unwieldy. ;) utility.h and macros.h are already > taken. Agreed. "config.h" sounds good as it is nice and general and can handle all basic setup stuff.
Daniel Russel wrote: > On Oct 8, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Ben Webb wrote: >> Daniel Russel wrote: >>> I would suggest having one header in each module called basic.h or >>> base_types.h or something similar which does the job of base_types.h >>> in IMP and defines the export and namespace macros. >> 'base_types.h' seems a little odd since neither the export nor the >> namespace macros are types. That header is actually doing the job of >> IMP_config.h, so we could call it config.h, but I don't know if >> that's a >> huge improvement over the current name. > The IMP_ in IMP_config.h always seemed redundant.
I agree - it was really only there because we were a bit sloppy about include paths at the time. It shouldn't be necessary any more.
> Agreed. "config.h" sounds good as it is nice and general and can > handle all basic setup stuff.
Very well - I will rename accordingly.
Ben
participants (2)
-
Ben Webb -
Daniel Russel