Re: Rearranging source files

[David Sugar]

On Thursday 01 January 2004 08:08 pm, Marc Boris Dürner wrote:

> Any thought on a naming scheme? ccNet seemed like the logical choice
> (ccAudio,
> ccScript... already exist). How shall we call the base lib? libccBase? or
> just libcc?

What's wrong with keeping libccgnu(2) for this purpose?

> 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