Re: declarations for built-in DEFUN functions

[Rik]

On 09/18/2012 01:23 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 18-Sep-2012, Rik wrote:
>
> | >
> | > Message: 7
> | > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:41:47 -0400
> | > From: "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>
> | > To: octave maintainers mailing list <address@hidden>
> | > Subject: declarations for built-in DEFUN functions
> | > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> | > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> | >
> | > Some questions:
> | >
> | > * Nearly all source files already have corresponding header files.
> | > Should we include the -defun-decls.h files there instead of in the
> | > .cc files?
> | 
> | I would expect to find exported function prototypes in header files so this
> | makes sense to me.
>
> What about for the functions in the libinterp/corefcn directory?
> Those don't currently have corresponding header files.  Should they,
> or should we just use the -defun-decls.h files for them?  There are 66
> files there, and more than half of those files provide only a single
> function.  So if we create header files for each of them we would be
> adding another 66 header files in addition to the 66 generated
> -defun-decls.h files.  Or, I suppose we could treat those files
> specially and generate foo.h instead of foo-defun-decls.h.
>
> Another option I considered was to just lump all these declarations
> together in builtins.h and not generate separate header files for each
> source file that defines a built-in function.
This also makes sense to me.  As you mentioned, the point is to be able to
call the built-in version of a function rather than the one that might be
laying around in the PATH.  So, why not have those declarations in builtins.h?

--Rik