Re: Rearranging source files

[Chad Yates]

At one point the idea was brought up to use ccxx for a namespace.  use 
of gnu seems to me to be to "generic".  just a thought. seach the 
archive for "Some issues with the codebase" for some history.

David Sugar wrote:

> > How about the namespace Gnu::? after all this is an official gnu project,
> > isnt it?
> >    
>
> Perhaps we should change the namespace at some point.  Of course, there is no 
> coordination among gnu C++ related package maintainers for the use of a gnu:: 
> namespace at present, so my first concern is how easy it might be for each of 
> us to stomp over the other, and we definately needed a separate namespace.  
> ost:: did well for that purpose the same way sun. does for Java classlibs, 
> especially from before it was a gnu package.  If we were to choose any other 
> namespace later, I think the right choice would likely be to use gnu::...
>
>  
>
> > Marc
> >
> > On Saturday 27 December 2003 17:06, you wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > It could make it easier to find things, but some classes were so trivial.
> > >
> > > Generally, source files are split by hiearchies of related classes and by
> > >
> > > library (ccgnu, ccext), although in many cases a source file do cover a
> > > single class and other cases a grouping of closely related classes.
> > >
> > > "Marc Boris Dürner" said:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Just wondering if the source files could be split so that there is one
> > > > class
> > > > per file?
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Marc
> > > >        
On the side I began a project to split the source out by class as you 
are doing.  I think it makes a lot of sense, and was doing so because it 
was difficult to keep track of what files contained what classes.  I 
can't remember how far along I was in it, and it's in a archive of one 
of my local cvs installations that I haven't set back up yet.  I think 
its a good idea for the long term anyway.

,chad