On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 22:59:37 +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
So, it all boils down to the question of whether this (probably rare) case justifies the (not very large) extra complexity of allowing header file names enclosed in <>.
I am happy either way, but slightly tend to the simpler solution (not allowing <>). Would everybody who prefers to have <> please say so and briefly say why?
Sorry for dropping into the discussion, but... Using "" instead of <> once caused me some problems (can't recall what it was in particular). However, since then my standard was to always use <> and handle the "" case by adding -I. parameters... That would also have the benefit of being somewhat less dependant on the behaviour of a implementation (as somebody quoted from the standard). If you put -I. in front, it will always get searched before include dirs given by subsequent -I options, right? Cheers, Michael -- () ASCII ribbon campaign | Chair for Computer Science II | GPG: F65C68CD /\ against HTML mail | RWTH Aachen, Germany | PGP: 1D0DD0B9 "I WILL NOT SELL SCHOOL PROPERTY" -- Bart Simpson in 7F10