stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (STDCXX-563) split up rw/_mutex.h
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:09:35 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:50 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (STDCXX-563) split up rw/_mutex.h
> ...
>> Right. IMO, we should go with whichever of the approaches is better.
>> Which one in your opinion is it?
> I would prefer not using directories to organize configuration-specific
> files.  If the configuration (cpu, os, compiler, whatever) is a part
> of the filename, the file can be placed in any arbitrary directory (not
> that it should be).

So if these files shouldn't be placed in arbitrary directories
(the only existing directory where could logically go right now
is include/rw) what is the benefit of encoding the platform in
their names? I'm not arguing for or against either approach (not
yet, despite the list below :) just trying to understand the
advantages. So far we have:

Advantages of platform directories:
  * consistency: no risk of having individual files that deviate
    from a naming convention established by the directories
  * code organization: it's clear where to look for files specific
    to each platform
  * established practice: atomic sources under subdirectories of
    src/, e.g., src/i86 or src/ia64, etc.


Advantages of encoding platform in file names:
  * established practice: rw/_config-*.h headers, e.g.,

  * risk of naming inconsistencies when adding new files


> If simpler, more generic filenames are needed,
> create links to the configuration-specific files.
> Brad.

View raw message