Re: [AD] RE: [AD] doc patch to mention the right include files

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2002-08-15, Vincent <Vincent.Penquerch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I don't like this.  It violates the separation of interface and
> > implementation.  And so my argument will hold, I declare 
> 
> It doesn't really. Would you really do:
> #include <libc.h>
> instead of including what you need, like string.h, stdio.h,
> or unistd.h ?

Those are really separate libraries, lumped together for convenience ;-)

> The splitup doesn't give you details about the implementation,
> it just enables one to include whatever one wants to use
> while (1) not getting swamped with stuff one doesn't use
> and (2) have slightly faster compiles (well, one might).

(1) Is anyone getting swamped?
(2) Get a faster machine

> > PS. I haven't enjoyed the moving of `aintern.h'...
> 
> Precisely because I saw the allegro/internal tree as internal
> implementation details, but allegro/*.h as public.

Well, that makes sense too.  If you want to go ahead, I think there
should be only one public header file for "graphics stuff".  It's too
finely split right now, from a user's POV.  The other subsystems seem to
be about right.

-- 
王浩禎