From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Cc: David Taylor <taylor@candd.org>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Anthony Green <green@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: RFA: abstract C++ ABI dependencies
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:21:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010425091841.22758J-100000@is>
References: <nphezeylk4.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00232.html

On 24 Apr 2001, Jim Blandy wrote:

> > 	    * c-typeprint.c, c-valprint.c, dbxread.c, eval.c, gdbtypes.c,
> > 	    jv-typeprint.c, linespec.c, symtab.c, typeprint.c, valops.c:
> > 	    #include "cp-abi.h".
> > 
> > For c-valprint.c, eval.c, typeprint.c, and valops.c, it is unclear to
> > me why you are including cp-abi.h.
> 
> Because they use functions which used to be declared elsewhere, but
> are now declared in cp-abi.h.  I've clarified the ChangeLog entry.

Isn't it better to put such explanations in the files which include 
cp-abi.h, rather than in a ChangeLog?

ChangeLog entries are not supposed to explain the reasons for the changes,
just the changes themselves; see standards.texi.  Beyond the Word of The
Law in standards.texi, I find it much easier to read comments right where
I might ask myself ``why the heck did they include this header?'' than to 
grep through lots of ChangeLog entries.