On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Philip Brown wrote:
[....]
IMHO, the names of functions and the file they are located in should be based on the functionality that they are providing, and should be grouped based on similar functionality and not based on similarities in portions of their names.
I agree with that sentiment 100%.
Which is why when I see the function in question, as providing a
DRI-specific function that does not *exist* if DRI is not compiled in,
it seems straightforward to me that as such, it should have a DRI-oriented name, and belongs in radeon_dri.c
With several people in disagreement with you though, I guess it might be a decision perhaps that should fall more into the lap of the driver maintainer or project lead or somesuch.
Well, I didn't have much to do with this code when it was written, but I'm happy for it to stay where it is and as it is named for now.
If someone wanted to take on a bigger task of comprehensively spring-cleaning the radeon 2d driver, that might be interesting, but renaming & moving that one function won't do anything to make the driver easier to navigate.
Keith
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and the chance of winning an Apple iPod:
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
