Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:20:50 -0500
Message-Id: <200302142020.h1EKKoS18967@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20030214191621.GA2427@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT
	Williams on Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:16:21 -0600)
Subject: Re: djasm in djasm?
References: <200302141822 DOT h1EIMO102255 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <20030214191621 DOT GA2427 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> But should we go one step further and create djasm/src, djasm/doc?

I wouldn't bother.  I think it would be OK to have a single directory
with multiple source files and one (or maybe even two) texinfo files.
If the docs grow to many files, we can put those in a doc
subdirectory, but I still wouldn't think also moving the sources would
be a benefit.

I think that we'd need to create a ./src subdirectory when the sources
become complex enough to require that they themselves be split up.