From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150529211248.Horde.KX_OffdaJ1iY0Du6zyO7vRu@ssl.eumx.net> Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 07:57:44 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Jurado?= To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134cc507ccd590517464577 Subject: Re: [9fans] Ports tree for Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5673a4c8-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a1134cc507ccd590517464577 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > It is the Plan 9 Way (TM) to avoid > nested inclusion of header files, $ arch/dat.h includes port/portdat.h in kernel. Exempted too? =C3=81lvaro Jurado Cuevas http://colmenar.biz.tm El 30/05/2015 07:11, escribi=C3=B3: > > Which version? > > > > "The id_t and pid_t types shall be defined as described in > > ." in issue 6 > > > > "The header shall define the id_t and pid_t types as > > described in ." in issue 7 > > > > in the sys/wait.h part of the headers section of base definitions > > I haven't looked at cinap's work, but... > > It is the Plan 9 Way (TM) to avoid nested inclusion of header files, > although I guess the APE may be exempted. I also appreciate that > adding conditional definitions of id_t and pid_t in that > match those in could lead to eventual inconsistencies, > but I would still prefer to follow the Plan 9 guidelines. > > But without a more formal code review structure and the apparent > absence of guidance from Bell Labs, I suppose I'm just farting in the > wind. > > Lucio. > > > --001a1134cc507ccd590517464577 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> It is the Plan 9 Way (TM) to avoid > nested inclusio= n of header files,

$ arch/dat.h includes port/portdat.h in kernel. Exempted too= ?

=C3=81lvaro Jurado Cuevas
http://colmenar.biz.tm

El 30/05/2015 07:11, <lucio@proxima.alt.za> escribi=C3=B3:
> Which version?
>
> "The id_t and pid_t types shall be defined as described in
> <sys/types.h>." in issue 6
>
> "The <sys/wait.h> header shall define the id_t and pid_t ty= pes as
> described in <sys/types.h>." in issue 7
>
> in the sys/wait.h part of the headers section of base definitions

I haven't looked at cinap's work, but...

It is the Plan 9 Way (TM) to avoid nested inclusion of header files,
although I guess the APE may be exempted.=C2=A0 I also appreciate that
adding conditional definitions of id_t and pid_t in <sys/wait.h> that=
match those in <sys/types.h> could lead to eventual inconsistencies,<= br> but I would still prefer to follow the Plan 9 guidelines.

But without a more formal code review structure and the apparent
absence of guidance from Bell Labs, I suppose I'm just farting in the wind.

Lucio.


--001a1134cc507ccd590517464577--