[petsc-dev] Forward declarations of types?

[Jed Brown]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>   Ok, I did an implementation with petscdrawtypes.h included by
> petscdraw.h, petscksp.h and petscsnes.h


Should it go in petsc-private because it generally doesn't make sense for
users to include directly? Or stay out of petsc-private because it's "safe"
to include if that's what they want?


>   not ideal (I hate having lots of little includes around) but it does
> keep the PetscDrawLG typedef out of petscys.h
>
>    People ok with me pushing?
>

Yup, should I try doing the same with petscdm.h? I see it as perhaps the
biggest funny dependency exposed by include-graph.sh.


>
>    Barry
>
> Currently only PetscDrawLG is in there, since that is the only one needed
> but others or all could be put there if desired.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Heh, I thought I remembered that duplicate typedefs were invalid in C,
> but gcc happily compiled it without a warning. In fact, they _are_ allowed
> in C11, but not in our old, crusty version of C.
> >
> > From the looks of it, the C forum never explicitly intended for it to be
> invalid, but as a consequence of the classification of typedef in C
> (typedef is classified differently in C++), it would have needed to be
> explicitly allowed. C11 added that clause.
> >
> > http://stackoverflow.com/a/8595191/33208
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130215/15beb61c/attachment.html>