Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!hammer!jockc
From: jockc@hammer.idsila.com (PRIV Account)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C common practice. (was: low level optimization)
Message-ID: <JOCKC.91Apr29111405@hammer.idsila.com>
Date: 29 Apr 91 18:14:05 GMT
References: <22354@lanl.gov> <16815@chaph.usc.edu> <1991Apr24.050556.16405@athena.mit.edu>
	<22649@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@hammer.UUCP
Organization: Int'l Digital Scientific, Inc.
Lines: 15
In-reply-to: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov's message of 25 Apr 91 23:02:53 GMT

In article <22649@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>I don't maintain that keeping code in separate file is necessarily
>bad or good.  But to pretend that it is not common practice is to 
>ignore reality.  This common practice may in (the near) future result 
>in less efficient code because of missed optimization.

My 2 cents.  I have never separated code to this degree (1 function
per file), nor have I ever known anyone who did it, nor have I ever seen
any packages from the net (or anywhere else) that do it.  

I breakdown source into files containing related functions, ie,
routines for painting screens in a file, file io stuff in a file,
ipc junk in a file, etc.

jockc@hammer.idsila.com