From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:11:19 +0000 From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <3987E2C2.7C73A4D7@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200007311515.LAA18248@cse.psu.edu>, <3985E318.10B7E8F8@arl.army.mil>, <8m6dhf$74d$1@inputplus.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [9fans] Installing the updates Topicbox-Message-UUID: f2580f98-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Many developers take the approach that each interface header should > > be self-contained, so that the user of the header doesn't need to > > know anything about the details of the implementation of that header. > > Information hiding, you know. > I think he's heard the argument but doesn't agree. > -- http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/pikestyle.html > (The document is a sane view in a profession contorted by ridculous > company coding standards that forbid short variable names and insist on > `add 1 to the object's reference counter' comments. Normally also the > place where code reviews are a farce where everyone tries to detect a > couple of spelling errors, even the same spelling errors as everyone > else, so they can show they studied the code.) I wasn't saying that *either* approach is always best, just that there could be solid reasons why the standard headers need to be idempotent as specified. Making interface headers self-contained is hardly in the same category as the "coding standards" you cite.