-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 482
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use of angle brackets around file names for include statements #35
Comments
Funny thing, this is exactly what's desired here! |
@nabijaczleweli is right: in this case, we want the inclusion to be exact and direct. If that's troubling to you, you can use the single header that's on the |
I suggest to reconsider the consequences of the following wording from the section "16.2 Source file inclusion" in the standard specification for the programming language "C++".
|
@elfring What do you mean by "duplicated file search?" Most (all?) implementations use Unless I'm completely missing something. |
There are different opinions about the handling of the involved implementation-defined behaviour.
|
@elfring If you want to discuss a detail about how includes work and what - in general - would be best to use in what circumstances, please do so on a discussion forum, or perhaps a Q&A site like http://stackoverflow.com. Right now you're saying "there are different opinions" but "therefore: you must change your opinion". I have a feeling it's not gonna fly and it's not important. I haven't seen a single rational argument why <> would be better in this case.
If the file is not found, then the wrong include style has been used for the file. Like the GCC docs linked state:
There should not been "duplicate searching". Only if you use the wrong style /and/ the compiler implements the fallback search /and/ a name clash exists (which likely doesn't happen for ¹ apparently I missed it |
Will "the angle brackets inclusion method" be usually triggered when you expect that the source file "sol/state.hpp" should be found in an installed system directory (instead of an other development folder)?
Do you know any compiler implementation which does not provide the specified "fallback"?
I find this interpretation interesting.
Would you like to prevent this anyhow? |
@elfring this might be the essential point. I guess you could argue that public headers should use <> include style so it works best with usual For internal includes, I'd say "" style is superior. It expresses intent. FWIW, I think the fallback is the only confusing factor here. |
I am trying to point this aspect out at various places. |
This issue is ridiculous and you're clogging my e-mail. If the inclusion style bugs you, download the header file from the release so you don't have to see the quoted includes. |
Would you like to replace any double quotes by angle brackets around file names for include statements?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: