[m-rev.] for review of name: comp_unit_interface.m

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:58:12 +1000, Peter Wang <novalazy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:17:31 +1000 (AEST), "Zoltan Somogyi" <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
> > This diff does not alter code, it just moves code around.
> > The only thing worth reviewing here is the name of the
> > new module. Any opinions?
> 
> compilation_unit_interface.m
> 
> extract_interface.m
> 
> split_compilation_unit.m to go with split_parse_tree_src.m?
> 
> Peter

I think compilation_unit_interface is too long, and the code
uses comp_unit as the name of the type representing
a compilation unit anyway.

I am also thinking that while the new module now contains
just the code to separate the parts of a comp_uni that go into
the .int file from the parts that don't, we should move
the code that whittles that down further into the contents
of the .int2 and .int3 files to the new module as well.
(The .int0 file is handled differently IIRC.)

I am fine with comp_unit_interface, comp_unit_interfaces,
and extract_interface{,s}. I don't like split_comp_unit as much,
since it is quite different kind of splitting from the kind done
by split_parse_tree_src.

What are people's preferences? Or does it not matter much?

Zoltan.