Re: Should inline.h be renamed inline.c ?

Karl Williamson wrote:
> porting/args_assert.t only looks for .c files.  If a function is placed 
> into inline.h which has such assertions, args_assert.t won't find them, 
> and fails.
> 
> We could add a special case into args_assert.t for inline.h, or we could 
> rename inline.h to be inline.c.
> 
> The other header files that contain inline functions have a .c suffix 
> already, such as dquote_static.c

inline.h explains better what it does than inline.c. inline.c might be 
to the uninitiated, a bunch of hot or performance critical code 
identical in concept to the pp_hot.c file. Perl XS/internals are 
notorious for being unhackable (culture, not security) to the general 
public. If it ends with .c, then you assume it is a compiland and a 
separate object file. Until you open the file read its comments, you 
think it was left in CORE directory as a bug. Currently in 5.17, CORE 
directory only winds up with libraries and .h files, no .c or .xs files, 
on Win32.

• Should inline.h be renamed inline.c ? by Karl Williamson
• Re: Should inline.h be renamed inline.c ? by bulk88
• Re: Should inline.h be renamed inline.c ? by Karl Williamson