Stephan Bergmann wrote:

> A  Should inter-module includes generally be "module/header" instead of 
> just "header"?  Then the current hedaburemove01 changes would be a 
> pragmatic hack---instead of changing tons of include lines in tons of 
> source files, change a single line that magically extends the search 
> path wherever necessary (and also where not necessary).  If this is the 
> ideal state, the drawback of the hedaburemove01 changes is that they 
> potentially move us further away from that state---new code can 
> introduce sloppy includes of just "header" that should be 
> "module/header", even in modules where this would have been caught before.
> 
> B  Or should inter-module includes generally be just "header" instead of 
> "module/header"?  Then the current hedaburemove01 changes would be sound 
> (and the modules that until now only allowed "module/header" should 
> ideally be cleaned up).
> 
> C  Or should we allow inter-module includes to be just "header" and 
> "module/header" higgledy-piggledy?
> 
> In my opinion A should be the ideal state to aim for:  It makes more 
> information explicit than B, so it should be more helpful to code 
> readers, and it should be less error prone (witness issue 76340).
In fact the current state is "C" and if we don't go for "B" it will stay
so as we still include all headers as "header" if they are not exported
(at least in most projects). These files reside either in the source
directories or in other include directories of the project(not in the
"inc" directory in the project root), like sw/source/ui/inc.

A script doing the conversion for includes of exported headers following
solution "A" would need to lookup headers before it can decide whether
the include statement needs to be changed or not. And the result would
still be "higgledly-piggledly".

Heading for solution "B" would need a less sophisticated script. And it
would be less work as a change according to "A" would affect the bigger
and more frequently edited modules and so create more resync surprises
for existing CWSs.

Ciao,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to