Randall Sawyer wrote:
> What if the contents of each include file be strictly limited to ONE
> macro/object or ONE class of macros/objects/textures/etc?  Furthermore,
[snip]

I'm inclined to go along with this, at least for macros/objects.

If the macro/object requires any other includes, they would be listed as
dependencies. If it doesn't want to depend on another include for some other
macro that the author already has but doesn't want to go to the trouble of
releasing separately, then that macro (or declarations, or whatever) must be
local to the file and not visible from outside, so as to not pollute the
namespace and potentially cause collisions.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message