Re: NSPathUtilities Patch - TOC

[David Ayers]

Sheldon Gill wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:12, David Ayers wrote:
>
> > Sheldon Gill wrote:
> >
> > > +ifeq ($(GNUSTEP_TARGET_OS), mingw32)
> > > +ADD_HEADERS += \
> > > +Win32Support.h \
> > > +Win32_Utilities.h
> >
> > The only effect of adding these headers to ADD_HEADERS is that they will
> > get installed (made public).  Now scanning through the other patches, I
> > don't see a header file that depends on this, only NSPathUtilities.m.
> > So unless you have a good reason to make them public, I'd strongly
> > suggest to not add these to ADD_HEADERS and keep them private.
>
>
> The reason I did this was to make the headers available to -gui and -back. 
> They're supposed to be "private to core" but there currently is no clean way 
> to do that as far as I can see.
> Adding external definitions to -gui and -back seems a poor way to go and 
> replicating the code even worse.
> If there is a way to keep them private to core but available outside -base I'm 
> more than happy to go with that.

Well back when we discussed the header structure change we had a similar 
situation wrt -gui and -back.  IIRC, the consensus was that we document 
that not all headers in GNUstepGUI are public (i.e. private to -core) 
and no one should rely on their existence.  At a later point in time we 
could introduce a 'private' subdirectory in which we were free to put 
-core specific headers.  Which would make them:

GNUstepBase/private
GNUstepGUI/private

Maybe we've now come to that time point in time.  I would really want to 
avoid installing new 'private' headers in the main library directories.

Cheers,
David