Tomas Carnecky tom@dbservice.com writes:
This patch doesn't change any logic or C sourcecode, it only moves the X11DRV escape code definition to one common header file. Currently the definitions are spread over several C source files, and even there the definitions differ from file to file. I don't see anything wrong with this patch unless you *want* to have it difficult to maintain the code.
Actually, that's more or less what we want. That sort of inter-dll dependencies should be strongly discouraged, and we don't want to add more of it than strictly necessary; as far as possible we also don't want dlls to depend on private headers, so copying a few things across is the preferred approach. If it becomes a problem it means something is wrong with our implementation.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Tomas Carnecky tom@dbservice.com writes:
This patch doesn't change any logic or C sourcecode, it only moves the X11DRV escape code definition to one common header file. Currently the definitions are spread over several C source files, and even there the definitions differ from file to file. I don't see anything wrong with this patch unless you *want* to have it difficult to maintain the code.
Actually, that's more or less what we want. That sort of inter-dll dependencies should be strongly discouraged, and we don't want to add more of it than strictly necessary; as far as possible we also don't want dlls to depend on private headers, so copying a few things across is the preferred approach. If it becomes a problem it means something is wrong with our implementation.
It's not that I've added a new inter-dll dependency, at least that's how I think. The dependency already *is* there, all these dlls depend on the ExtEscape() function. What about putitng the x11drv escape codes into the header where the ExtEscape() prototype is? These escape codes belong to the ExtEscape() function, that's what that function understands/supports.
tom
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Tomas Carnecky