From owner-cvs-all Mon Jun 10 18:22:33 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from espresso.q9media.com (espresso.q9media.com [216.254.138.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9BF37B400; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mike@localhost) by espresso.q9media.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5B1If032809; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:18:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:18:41 -0400 From: Mike Barcroft To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Sergey Babkin , "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include pwd.h Message-ID: <20020610211841.C90728@espresso.q9media.com> References: <200206091939.g59JdJC05285@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020610004026.GD61036@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200206100049.g5A0nr1P004846@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609211243.C51371@espresso.q9media.com> <200206100314.g5A3EjTt005317@apollo.backplane.com> <20020609232020.F51371@espresso.q9media.com> <3D05364A.469A44A5@bellatlantic.net> <200206102347.g5ANlA6I023876@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200206102347.g5ANlA6I023876@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 04:47:10PM -0700 Organization: The FreeBSD Project Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon writes: > My worry here is that so *many* includes depend on things in sys/types.h, > if we were to carry out this 'duplicate typedef' idea to its fullest > extent we would have hundreds of dups over many of the header files > in the system. And even with that many programs would either still > wind up having to include , or certain include files > would still have to include due to heavy type > dependancies. > > So even with this methodology I see no way to be able to guarentee to > a programmer that pollution from the contents of can be > avoided, even if the programmer does everything right. Try using any of the interfaces in the headers I've brought up to conformance to verify that is no longer needed. , , , , , , , , . Some of these might require a POSIX environment (#define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200112L), but for the most part even BSD namespace works without a . > This issue of pollution may be true, but if most programs wind up > including anyway it is something we just have to live > with. The C language is not hierarchical, it's a fact of life. None of the headers defined by the Standard will require AFAIK. We might wish to take this approach with BSD headers too, since it seems to work quite well. > I do not think it will have a positive effect on the codebase and > it *will* seriously mangle the include files if the concept is taken > to extremes. If you take it to extremes you *might* be able to > reduce pollution from , but not eliminate it. If you do > not take it to extremes there isn't much of a point to doing it in > the first place since there will be no deterministic way for the > programmer to have any assurance of reduced pollution. We wind up being > screwed either way. I don't follow. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message