Max Bowsher wrote:
OK, I've committed the bulk of these changes - that is, all files which have
both and inclusion guard and a standard-form copyright comment.
Here are some comments on the remainder:
md5.h rfc1738.h: Imported from elsewhere, so I'm not changing them.
Cool.
resource.h: Special c
Robert Collins wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
...
>> Whilst I'm tidying up the names of the include guards, I might as well
tidy
>> up the locations of the include guards (with respect to the comments at
the
>> start of the file). Is this ordering OK? :
...
> Please do - this is fine.
OK, I've commit
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:23:44 +0100 Max Bowsher wrote:
> Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote:
> > From his example and as this discussion is in cygwin-apps, I thought
> > Max was talking about setup.exe and/or similar stuff, which is
> > user-level, non-"implementation" code AFAICS.
> No, exactly right. As
Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote:
> Hi Glenn, Max,
>
>
> Glenn Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> implementation specific symbols, e.g. include guards, should begin
>> with '_' to avoid namespace pollution
>
> Pardon me if I try to clarify: By "implementation" you probably mean
> the compiler headers,
Hi Glenn, Max,
Glenn Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> implementation specific symbols, e.g. include guards, should begin
> with '_' to avoid namespace pollution
Pardon me if I try to clarify: By "implementation" you probably mean
the compiler headers, like , including POSIX headers like
, an
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:52:14 +0100 Max Bowsher wrote:
> I'm about to do the include guard cleanup I mentioned some time ago.
implementation specific symbols, e.g. include guards, should begin
with '_' to avoid namespace pollution
-- Glenn Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AT&T Labs Research, Florham Pa
Max Bowsher wrote:
Off-list (presumably accidentally), Gary R. Van Sickle replied:
I tend to think that the include guards should wrap as much of the file as
possible, idea being that the compiler then bypasses the most text
possible.
But then again, rumor has it that gcc (at least) recognizes s
Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm about to do the include guard cleanup I mentioned some time ago.
Whilst I'm tidying up the names of the include guards, I might as well tidy
up the locations of the include guards (with respect to the comments at the
start of the file). Is this ordering OK? :
---
Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I'm about to do the include guard cleanup I mentioned some time ago.
>>
>> Whilst I'm tidying up the names of the include guards, I might as well
tidy
>> up the locations of the include guards (with respect to the comments at
the
>> start of the file). Is this ordering OK? :
>
I'm about to do the include guard cleanup I mentioned some time ago.
Whilst I'm tidying up the names of the include guards, I might as well tidy
up the locations of the include guards (with respect to the comments at the
start of the file). Is this ordering OK? :
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
