Web lists-archives.com

Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] pack: move pack name-related functions




Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 8/9/2017 1:16 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
>> Ah, I forgot to mention this in the cover letter. I thought that one
>> header was sufficient to cover all pack-related things, so if we wanted
>> to know which files used pack-related things, we would only need to
>> search for one string instead of two. Also, the division between
>> "pack.h" and the hypothetical "packfile.h" was not so clear to me.
>
> I prefer having source and the header files that export the functions
> have matching names to make it easy to find them.  I would prefer
> packfile.h vs pack.h myself.

Meaning "If we have packfile.c, packfile.h is preferrable over pack.h"?
I tend to agree with that.