From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: split up process.c Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:39 -0400 Message-ID: <87630mf514.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <83d3ux7ris.fsf@gnu.org> <83lj9lbtka.fsf@gnu.org> <83ocefa1v1.fsf@gnu.org> <83vd8mv99d.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278859738 8668 80.91.229.12 (11 Jul 2010 14:48:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:48:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dan Nicolaescu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 11 16:48:56 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXxpt-0000PZ-Dh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:48:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53709 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXxps-00005T-Qc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57281 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXxpn-0008WB-OY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXxpl-0007oQ-RB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:47 -0400 Original-Received: from pantheon-po14.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.23]:54344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXxpl-0007oK-Oz; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:45 -0400 Original-Received: from furry (adsl-99-69-53-86.dsl.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net [99.69.53.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by pantheon-po14.its.yale.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o6BEme7f029989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:43 -0400 Original-Received: by furry (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 427B3C011; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:48:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83vd8mv99d.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:10:38 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.2c (attachment(s) not renamed) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127049 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > There's now only one function, wait_reading_process_output, which >> > has 2 different implementations. (I could easily have a single >> > function with two different bodies conditioned by `subprocesses', >> > or I could move the second implementation to msdos.c, if people >> > prefer that. But both alternatives looked no cleaner, and the >> > latter would even make more maintenance headaches, IMO.) >> >> IMO it should go to msdos.c unless that requires other important code >> changes. > > I will defer to Stefan and Yidong for the decision. Personally, I > think having a function with the same name on two different source > files will make maintenance a tad harder than it is when they are on > the same file. I think the present situation is fine.