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

[Vincent Penquerc'h <Vincent.Penquerch@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

> 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 ?
This would have its merits, but doesn't mean it'd have only
merits.
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).

Still, I would agree that it's maybe a bit too early to
settle on that. I remember having seen things that ought
to be moved in another header. Can't remember what, but
it'd be annoying to have to change the include directives
when a new version of Allegro is released. Still, it's
your choice. You can still just #include <allegro.h> if
you so wish.

> `allegro.h' to
> be the interface, and almost all the headers in the `allegro'
> directory
> to be "implementation details" ;-)
>
> 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.

Actually, IIRC, I had moved stuff further, but Henrik
lessened the moving around :)

--
Vincent Penquerc'h