Re: comments in getdelim.h

[Simon Josefsson]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> May I add comments to getdelim.h?
>>
>> Hi!  There is one in getdelim.c already.  Maybe remove it?  I'm not
>> sure what the policy is on placing function documentation, although I
>> usually keep them with the actual function.
>>
>> Or we could have two function descripts, one in getdelim.c and one in
>> getdelim.h, I don't mind.
>>
>> Perhaps we could discuss this generally, agree on a principle on
>> document it?  My preference is as above, but it is not a strong one.
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> We've had this debate at least once before.
> The conclusion was that we agreed to disagree.
>
> Bruno prefers to put documentation in .h files near the public
> declaration, most (all?) others prefer to put it in the .c files (nearer
> the actual implementation).  One proposal is to keep it in both places,
> but that violates the no-duplication tenet, since there is no easy way to
> keep them in sync.  So far, we're at an impasse.  Things owned by Bruno
> follow his approach.  Most others put public function documentation near
> the definition.
>
> Don't succumb :-)

Ok, then since getdelim.c have documentation with the source code, I
think that module fine as is.  Bruno, if your docstring improved on
the current, incorporating yours in getdelim.c seems like a good idea.

As for getline: Bruno, is it ok to apply your docstring to getline.c
instead?

Your #include fix to getline.c seem good.

/Simon