On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 06:11 -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> What
> >> is the problem with one header?
> >
> > The problem with one header is it will (in the limit) refer to every
> > type defined in all Subversion libraries: a big monolithic lump that
>
> Gah! Yeah, you're right.
>
> Alrighty... well, let's at least get the SVN_DEPRECATED into the
> declarations. That's pretty cool.
>
> Solving the type issues... urgh.
>
> An intermediate easy solution: move all deprecated declarations to the
> *bottom* of the header file. Anybody have an issue with that?
I have no issue with that.
> I'm okay with an svn_deprecated.h that contains as many deprecated
> functions as possible, but leaves behind things that need special
> types. It is a bit messier since some deprecated things will remain,
> and some will move. But that doesn't really bother me. Thoughts?
I don't think there are enough of those to make it worthwhile.
Anyway, what was your problem with having an extra, what is it, 40 or so
header files in the project? Let's say we put them in a
"subversion/include/deprecated/" subdirectory as a sibling of the
"private" subdirectory. Would that really cause a disaster? :-)
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-19 15:19:26 CEST