On Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 03:31 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I haven't seen the following spelled out, so I thought I'd take a stab at it. It seems to reflect the general coding standards currently in effect for the business objects.
For any given business object the following applies:
There exist three files for each <object>: - gnc<object>.h - declaring the public interface - gnc<object>P.h - declaring additional object management methods not for client use. - gnc<object>.c - implementing the object
The implementation is confined to gnc<object>.c, including the defininition of struct _gnc<object>.
Client code #includes only gnc<object>.h. The client is aware only of the datatype Gnc<Object>, defined as "typedef _gnc<object> Gnc<object>". The client only deals with an unspecified structure via pointer--it remains blissfully unaware of _gnc<object>'s internal structure.
Did I get it right? Should this sort of stuff be contributed to the devel wiki?
Yes, you got it right, but I don't think this is at all necessary to get documented beyond that. It's pretty much "opaque object programming 101". This usage is even documented in the files themselves, so I dont really think it needs anything beyond that.
Hey, I'll take my victories where I can get them :-)
However, I will quibble with the 'documented in the files' part. What's there is pretty skimpy. FWIW, I'm a fan of _explicit_ declaration of conventions and expectations. I've spent far too much time chasing down bugs ultimately attributable to misunderstood assumptions.
AFAIK the conventions used are implicit and not documented, either in the code or elsewhere. The 'private' aspect is documented only in a few of the *P.h headers and the absence of any 'public' declarations implies public unless specified otherwise. I agree that the pattern used for the most part matches that of basic opaque object programming (aka data abstraction/hiding for C)--but it isn't stated anywhere.
But now it's on the record; so I'm happy :-)
There're also _two_ naming conventions at play: the aforementioned StudlyCap "*P.h", and the "*-p.h" convention used for qof* objects. The use of one or another appears to be historical. Is one preferred over the other for new work? Or should one stick to the predominate convention for the directory at hand?
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
