Remove leading underscore from header guard methods.

[dirmeier]

According to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/228783/what-are-the-rules-about-using-an-underscore-in-a-c-identifier/228797#228797 leading underscores should be avoided at all.

Each name that contains a double underscore (_ _) or begins with an underscore followed by an uppercase letter (2.11) is reserved to the implementation for any use.

See our discussion on: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/39291133/how-to-change-header-include-guards-in-rcpp-interfaces/39291326?noredirect=1#comment65919759_39291326

[eddelbuettel]

We have a document Contributing.md which you get reminded about before submitting. Allow me to quote from it:

Submitting a Pull Request

Considering submitting a pull request? It is strongly recommended that you first post an issue outlining some motivation for your pull request to ensure that some discussion around the appropriate resolution for the issue occurs first.

You didn't. Why?

[dirmeier]

Oh, I see. I am sorry. There has already been a pull-request:

#528

However, this does not fix the “leading underscore” issue.
I am sorry, I should have read the Contributing.md first. Just delete it then…was a one-liner anyways.

Best,
Simon

On 02 Sep 2016, at 17:12, Dirk Eddelbuettel <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

We have a document Contributing.mdhttps://github.com/RcppCore/Rcpp/blob/master/Contributing.md which you get reminded about before submitting. Allow me to quote from it:

Submitting a Pull Request

Considering submitting a pull request? It is strongly recommended that you first post an issue outlining some motivation for your pull request to ensure that some discussion around the appropriate resolution for the issue occurs first.

You didn't. Why?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/548#issuecomment-244403051, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APV2To-Tug0ywiHTSvLG6utEnd0QpE5Sks5qmDzKgaJpZM4Jzzdx.

[eddelbuettel]

So the polite way to go about this---which happens to be the one we documented and ask you to follow---is to first establish consensus that a change is desired before establishing how to achieve it. And that should precede throwing code over the fence. Sadly, you have done neither, I am tired of this and I am inclined to just close this here.

Maybe you get lucky and @jjallaire pipes and blesses your PR. We may even merge it. But please don't take that as encouragement for the still-wrong process you used.

[eddelbuettel]

@jjallaire blessed this (in private mail) so with that LGTM (and earlier pushes by @coatless to do the same) I will now give in and merge this...