Refactoring patches

[Pavel Sanda]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:14:50AM +0300, Yuriy Skalko wrote:
> > Agreed. Unfortunately I suspect that we can achive this only by manually
> > going through the suspects proposed by some tools instead of just
> > taking their results.
> 
> Here are manual cleaning of some headers is separate patches. But I
> don't think I'll be able to process all the headers.

1, 2, 9 are good to go.
For 8 I do not understand the +#include "insets/Inset.h" part yet.

For the .cpp patches, by "manual" you mean that you checked that
the structures in deleted includes are not used in the .cpp file?

> >> And not to depend on transitive (or recursive as you called)
> >> includes since they are fragile and not reliable.
> > 
> > I do not think this is good idea, our include section would explode
> > if we really tried to fix all these
> 
> Why?

I think that we have lot of dependencies hidden through the transitive process. 

Going the direction you propose would mean slightly longer compile times,
(I belive quite) longer include section and the order would deteriorate quite
quickly because compiler will not warn you when some include was missed thanks
to the transitivity of others.

Pavel