Re: Source Tree Preference
Re: Source Tree Preference
- Subject: Re: Source Tree Preference
- From: Scott Tooker <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:56:36 -0800
On Nov 10, 2003, at 4:30 AM, Chris Page wrote:
> I'm not trying to jump on Scott or anybody else here, but I think this
> issue deserves more voices so we're clear that Marshall isn't a
> minority of one. I also think this is important to discuss not because
> this particular issue can't be resolved with enough bug reports, but
> because it highlights a divide in the developer community, between Mac
> developers and Unix developers, that I think is worth examining.
To be fair, I don't think this is a Mac vs. UNIX thing (and I don't
think it helps to put in those terms). I've met Mac developers (who
have used CodeWarrior for a long time) who think that recursive search
paths are "evil".
Really I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on simplifying
header management vs. being explicit about which headers are chosen.
Those who like recursive search paths appreciate the simplicity it
brings (you only need to provide a small set of header paths). They
would also contend that the chance of running into duplicate header
names is small and avoidable with proper ordering of search paths.
Those who don't like recursive search paths feel that the ambiguity
that recursive search paths create (which can lead to excessive
scanning for headers and/or subtle header inclusion bugs) outweighs or
negates the simplicity. They would also contend that changes to the
source layout (just adding or renaming a header file, in some cases)
can lead to such problems, since the inclusion is not explicitly
defined.
>
> I think the overall tone of this discussion is unnecessarily
> confrontational. Recursive search paths are extremely useful and have
> been used successfully by thousands of developers for decades, and it
> should be a simple matter to recognize that and give thoughtful
> consideration to the existence proof of their utility without trying
> to convince someone they're somehow programming "wrong" if they're
> using them.
To be clear, when recursive header paths were last looked at it was
mainly in the context of supporting the CodeWarrior Importer in
bringing over CodeWarrior projects to Xcode. Given the available time
and resources, a different solution (having the importer scan and add
referenced headers to the project) was pursued.
By all means, if there are Xcode users out there that want to use
recursive search paths in new projects, file bugs asking for it.
Providing a simple example of why this is helpful in the bug would also
help (realize that some of those people evaluating the bugs haven't
spent a lot of time with CodeWarrior). Even more important is being
specific about the semantics you expect (do you want what CodeWarrior
does, or something else?).
And whether we add such a feature or not to Xcode, this conversation
definitely highlights the problem that there needs to be better way to
manage references to included files (for example, perhaps we should
provide an option when adding a file to a project that we also add all
the files that are included too.).
Scott
[demime 0.98b removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which had a name of smime.p7s]
_______________________________________________
xcode-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/xcode-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.