Agreed.
I was just asking...
Ralph
On Thu 01 Apr 2010 19:13:54 Andrew Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 01 April 2010 15:16:34 Jeff Hill wrote:
Would a second-level tag "com" (or "libcom"?) make
sense for all libcom stuff, and then maybe "osi"
below that?
I suppose the rationale against including packaging
boundaries in the namespace hierarchy would be that you couldn’t change the
packaging without impacting the source code of users. Is there a benefit
resulting from including packaging boundaries in the namespace hierarchy?
Not that I can think of, I vote we just use epics::osi
- Andrew
- References:
- naming the operating system independence layer Jeff Hill
- Re: naming the operating system independence layer Ralph Lange
- RE: naming the operating system independence layer Jeff Hill
- Re: naming the operating system independence layer Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: naming the operating system independence layer Andrew Johnson
- Next:
[Bug 541396] Re: initialize VAL of an mbbi/o record with a string Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: naming the operating system independence layer Andrew Johnson
- Next:
RE: naming the operating system independence layer Jeff Hill
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|