Naike
2010-11-03 09:38:12
Stuff that is only used in one file, such as types and function consts, shouldn't really be in a separate file. It's messy, and very, very annoying.
I've been asked about this, and there is no real reason for keeping it the way there are.. in other words, give the people what they want?
mormonman
2010-11-03 13:31:30
Constants.simba is less messy imo
Naike
2010-11-04 08:42:52
From: mormonman
Constants.simba is less messy imo
You can't use the include too much.
I have to scroll 400 lines to find a single function const, instead of having it ontop of the function? How is that a less messy? :duh:
Narcle
2010-11-04 08:50:32
I rather scroll up to the top to look at the constants value or a record to see the sub items then taking the time to open another file and using the search field just to find a constant/record that should be in the original file in the first place.
Unless its a Globally used constant/record that is used in many places there is no reason it shouldn't be at top of the file its associated with. Even IF its globally used it could be placed in "core.simba."
Yes the current way may look "neat" but its very inconvenient for those that want to research the include.
Coh3n
2010-11-04 13:36:28
If it's global, it should be in a separate file, but if it's meant for one function (or one file I suppose) it should go at the top of the function. That's how MSI does it (for the most part).
Coh3n
2010-11-04 17:22:54
From: Naike
And so does SRL?
Well sort of. SRL has some constants/types all over the place. I've never really looked into it though.