Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8/9/2017 1:16 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> Ah, I forgot to mention this in the cover letter. I thought that one >> header was sufficient to cover all pack-related things, so if we wanted >> to know which files used pack-related things, we would only need to >> search for one string instead of two. Also, the division between >> "pack.h" and the hypothetical "packfile.h" was not so clear to me. > > I prefer having source and the header files that export the functions > have matching names to make it easy to find them. I would prefer > packfile.h vs pack.h myself. Meaning "If we have packfile.c, packfile.h is preferrable over pack.h"? I tend to agree with that.
