Limiting config.h's #includes

Limiting config.h's #includes

[Paul Eggert]

In Bug#24506 I propose moving some #include directives from src/conf_post.h to 
the files that need the includes. I'm mentioning this on emacs-devel for any 
people who don't read the bugs list and who care about this sort of thing.

The idea is that <config.h> should limit itself to configuration items 
appropriate for all C files. This is something that has bugged me for a while 
about Emacs <config.h>, and the precipitating event for the proposed patch is 
the problems discussed in the recent "unexmacosx.c and limits.h problem" thread.

While we're on the topic, the name "conf_post.h" should use a hyphen not 
underscore ("conf-post.h") as per longstanding Emacs file name conventions. 
Although the patch proposed in Bug#24506 leaves the file name alone, I'd like to 
rename it after installing the patch.

Re: Limiting config.h's #includes

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 01:49:23 -0700
> 
> While we're on the topic, the name "conf_post.h" should use a hyphen not 
> underscore ("conf-post.h") as per longstanding Emacs file name conventions. 

Do we have to?  Renaming files raises difficulties when using Git
commands to explore the history: some commands need non-default
switches, others simply stop working.

I'd prefer not to rename files unless really needed.  Naming
conventions don't sound like such a good reason to me.

Re: Limiting config.h's #includes

[Paul Eggert]

On 09/22/2016 08:11 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> While we're on the topic, the name "conf_post.h" should use a hyphen not
>> underscore ("conf-post.h") as per longstanding Emacs file name conventions.
> Do we have to?

Of course we don't have to. It's simply a tradeoff between naming 
conventions and inertia, and there are arguments both ways. In hindsight 
I should have renamed the file right after it was introduced a couple of 
years ago; as I recall, I didn't do that primarily because we were too 
close to a release.

Re: Limiting config.h's #includes

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "PE" == Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

PE> Of course we don't have to. It's simply a tradeoff between naming
PE> conventions and inertia, and there are arguments both ways. In hindsight I
PE> should have renamed the file right after it was introduced a couple of
PE> years ago; as I recall, I didn't do that primarily because we were too
PE> close to a release.

I don't mind if it's changed, FWIW.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2