John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Did you use <> instead of "" for libpspp #includes for some > related reason? I am a little puzzled by that choice. > > Well yes. Because of the problems inhibiting the current directory > inclusion for "", some people advocate never using #include "". > > There's no formal standard which dictates when <> should be > prefered over "". ANSI C says it's implementation dependent. We've > all been taught since 1st year undergrads, that <> is for 'system > files' and "" is for everything else. Unfortunately noone has ever > been able to satisfactorily explain what a 'system file' is. > > I don't have any strong opinions on what we should consider our > 'system' to be. However, the rule which I've found has led to fewest > complications over the years is that "" is used only for including > files which are never intended to be public (ie #included by files > which reside in the same directory). Everything else uses <>.
To me using <> for files actually included in the source tree looks odd. I've always considered the "system" to be whatever is outside the current source tree. However, <> works too, and as long as it does I guess it's fine. It's a waste of time to sweat the truly unimportant details. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
