Russell Yanofsky wrote:
>cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
>
>>"SteveKing" <steveking@gmx.ch> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>1) Use __cdecl and DEF files. The advantages are that it doesn't
>>>>require any modifications to the source, that it might lead to
>>>>slightly faster load times if ordinals are specified, and that
>>>>__cdecl is the default calling convention for C and C++, so
>>>>programmers wouldn't have to specify it explicity or wonder which
>>>>convention to use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That would require extra work. And I think that would lead to
>>>problems whenever the DEF file doesn't match the __cdecl in the
>>>source. Or can
>>>you guarantee that those are always in sync?
>>>
>>>
>>I am nearly -1 on DEF files. Unnecessary maintainance burden.
>>
>>
>
>I don't see how DEF files are a maintenance burden. It's no more work put
>add a function to a DEF file than it is to add SVN_DECLARE to a source file.
>It's not like the DEF files will be able to go out of date with nobody
>noticing. If anything is wrong with the DEF files, there will be link
>errors.
>
>
Only if you use the DLLs. I would veto any use of DEF unless they are
dynamically generated from the sources as part of the build process.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 23 21:12:54 2003