>>If I have constants and functions to share between processes,
>>I use the default "work" library, as this is much less trouble
>>and more portable than naming and maintaining my own library.
> I don't think that this is very portable. If you reuse your code, you
> have to be very careful about constant names, there might be more
> packages including a constant with a specific name. Eg. you use a
> library bus_master and a library bus_slave, you don't have to care
> about constants names with the same name for master and slave IP.
Yes, there could be name conflicts, but this would be discovered at compile time and is easily corrected in the source file being edited.
The upside is that all the developers can CVS to/from a single directory and compile with a very simple make procedure.
I agree that this scheme might become difficult for a large number of developers.
-- Mike Treseler