Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 20.03.2013 16:16, Julian Foad wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>> Since svn_hash.h includes svn_types.h, won't this be more like
> replacing the
>>> inclusion of the latter with the inclusion of the former?
>> I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if we do decide to leave the
> definitions in svn_hash.h and add '#include <svn_hash.h>' to each
> C file, that would be functionally equivalent to replacing one #include
> directive with the other, because of the include-guards. I would oppose
> actually removing '#include <svn_types.h>' from the source files,
> as a matter of style.
> Actually, since we have svn_hash.h, and that (I hope) includes
> apr_hash.h, and presumably files that refer to APR hash functions also
> include apr_hash.h ... we're looking at
> in every .c file. So /if/ we decide to accept the code churn, it seems
> to me this #include change makes the most sense.
Good point. +1.
There was a flaw in my argument: svn__apr_hash_index_key etc. are in svn_types.h because they are intended to be temporary names for functions that APR should eventually provide, whereas the newer 'svn_hash_gets' etc. are not.
Received on 2013-03-20 17:45:32 CET