|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2004-03-03 15:14:24
|
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 14:33, Andras Erdei wrote: > On 28 Feb 2004 12:02:59 +0000, Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@ca...> > wrote: > > >I prefer the _fwd.h approach you described. > > one more question came up: > > there are only a few headers introducing new types > (and a single header usually defines a single new > type); should there be a single global "ntfs_fwd.h" > forward-declaring all five-or-so types, or separate > forwards for each header file (slightly cleaner, but > in this case an overkill) ? If you don't mind could we go for the overkill approach? libntfs is still young and growing (even if very slowly) and more and more types will be defined in the future and then ntfs_fwd.h would become unpleasantly big so I would prefer to start with separate _fwd.h files to avoid this ever happening. (-: If it is too much work, then don't worry and do them in a single ntfs_fwd.h; we can always split that up if/when it becomes too big... Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ |
