Re: [Geany-Devel] Plugin API design question/change proposal

2014-05-25 Thread Matthew Brush
Hi, If nobody's opposed to this, then I'll start working on it shortly. At worst we'll end up with some new `*private.h` files in the `src` directory and maybe find some buggy plugins and/or unintentionally-public API. I'll try to keep the private headers changes separate from the removal

[Geany-Devel] [RFC]: Public API comments in headers

2014-05-25 Thread Matthew Brush
Hi, As part of working on cleaning up the exposed API to plugins I got to thinking about where our comments are located. While it's nice to keep the API-documentation-comments right at the definitions of the functions in their respective .c source files, since we only install the headers as

Re: [Geany-Devel] Another set of Plugin API questions

2014-05-25 Thread Lex Trotman
On 26 May 2014 09:38, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: Hi, Is it fair to say that any function that is not represented in `geanyfunctions.h`/`plugindata.h` and any types that are not documented with a `/**` or other Doxygen comment are to be considered private with respect to the

Re: [Geany-Devel] Another set of Plugin API questions

2014-05-25 Thread Matthew Brush
On 14-05-25 04:38 PM, Matthew Brush wrote: [snip] And my final question: do we support individual includes of Geany's headers that were available? For example, if someone, for some crazy reason wanted to move `struct GeanyDocument` to `document-blah.h` (fake example), is it a plugin bug if they

Re: [Geany-Devel] [RFC]: Public API comments in headers

2014-05-25 Thread Lex Trotman
On 26 May 2014 09:50, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: Hi, As part of working on cleaning up the exposed API to plugins I got to thinking about where our comments are located. While it's nice to keep the API-documentation-comments right at the definitions of the functions in their

Re: [Geany-Devel] [RFC]: Public API comments in headers

2014-05-25 Thread Matthew Brush
On 14-05-25 05:23 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: On 26 May 2014 09:50, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: [snip] If we moved to having public headers that just included actual public symbols, I think it would be advantageous to have those headers totally commented/documented rather than

Re: [Geany-Devel] Another set of Plugin API questions

2014-05-25 Thread Lex Trotman
On 26 May 2014 10:19, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 14-05-25 04:38 PM, Matthew Brush wrote: [snip] And my final question: do we support individual includes of Geany's headers that were available? For example, if someone, for some crazy reason wanted to move `struct

Re: [Geany-Devel] Another set of Plugin API questions

2014-05-25 Thread Matthew Brush
On 14-05-25 05:16 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: On 26 May 2014 09:38, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: [snip] Another example is `filetype_id` which is the enum type in `filetypes.h` that holds the various filetype IDs (ex. GEANY_FILETYPES_C, GEANY_FILETYPES_HTML, etc.). It's completely

Re: [Geany-Devel] Plugin API design question/change proposal

2014-05-25 Thread Lex Trotman
On 26 May 2014 09:10, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: Hi, If nobody's opposed to this, then I'll start working on it shortly. At worst we'll end up with some new `*private.h` files in the `src` directory and maybe find some buggy plugins and/or unintentionally-public API. I'll try