RFC - Next refactoring steps

[Andrew MacLeod]

On 09/05/2013 06:38 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> Or are you suggesting that coretypes.h is a file we can assume is available?
>> that seems like a bit of a slippery slope, but we could pick a few.  I
>> prefer it be explicit myself.
> coretypes.h is available. Why do you think that's a slippery slope?
> The name of this header file already suggests its purpose: Define the
> core types - to *avoid* having to include files like bitmap.h if you
> really only want "struct bitmap_head; typedef struct bitmap_head
> *bitmap;".
>
>
yeah, coretypes.h wouldn't be a slipperly slope...  so in this case it 
would be coretype.h which is included not bitmap.h in the header file

Andrew