From: Chris Ross Date: 2002-06-04T20:37:57+09:00 Subject: Re: rb_hash_has_key() and friends non-static... On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 01:26:44 Sean Chittenden wrote: : > > As for splitting out the declarations into its own header, that was : > > just something I did as it would provide a very convenient way of : > > grouping and documenting the C API inline with the headers. Can : > > someone please comment on either? -sc : > : > The name "ruby_hash.h" doesn't seem so good, for me. : : How about just "hash.h" ? It does seem like overkill to have "ruby_" : in there. -sc How about file system name conflicts? -> with ruby_ you atleast can guarantee that when the header is found by the compiler it's the correct one. The other approach is to have them all in a ruby/ directory in the include directory. Regards, Chris -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Chris Ross | chris@darkrock.co.uk | ctr@ferite.org | | | http://www.darkrock.co.uk | http://www.ferite.org | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ "I feel more like I do now than I did before."