|
put library <body> at top-level
Per Bothner
(30 Nov 2005 20:33 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: put library <body> at top-level
Per Bothner
(03 Dec 2005 16:16 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: put library <body> at top-level Ray Blaak (03 Dec 2005 16:17 UTC)
|
||
|
import suggestion
Ray Blaak
(03 Dec 2005 16:17 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: put library <body> at top-level
Matthew Flatt
(30 Nov 2005 22:20 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: put library <body> at top-level
Per Bothner
(30 Nov 2005 22:29 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: put library <body> at top-level
Bradd W. Szonye
(03 Dec 2005 16:16 UTC)
|
||
Re: put library <body> at top-level Ray Blaak 01 Dec 2005 18:41 UTC
>> - sometimes many >> small libraries are best expressed in a single file, > > > I think this is fairly rare, and not a very important use case. > If they're small, why should they be separate libraries? The organization of libraries can be done for reasons other than size: purpose, ownership, units of work, etc.