Re: [PATCH 1/5] sequencer: factor code out of revert builtin
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>> [...]
>> With that observation, it would probably make more sense if "foo.c"
>> included the headers in the following order:
>>
>> - Anything the declarations in "foo.h" depends on;
>> - "foo.h" itself; and finally
>> - Other headers that "foo.c" implementation needs.
>>
>> That way, people who want to use "foo.h" can guess what needs to be
>> included before using "foo.h" a lot more easily.
>
> That's a good rule-of-thumb. Thanks :)
Does git not use the common practice of self-contained headers?
-miles
--
Fast, small, soon; pick any 2.
Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>