Re: RFC: change in policy for include guards

On 02/11/2014 04:48 AM, Kinkie wrote:

> The topic I'm thinking of is the policy of autoconf-detecting some
> system headers we use. While this is undoubtably good for C- and
> system- headers, it doesn't make much sense for pure C++ headers,
> which are very strongly defined by the standard and for which there is
> no compatilibty wrapper. In these cases, making the include
> conditional will only result in a less-readable error message when the
> build eventually fails.
>
> What do you think?

I agree that there is little point in guarding standard headers that
provide required classes that we do not provide a replacement for. IIRC,
I have not been adding _new_ guards for such header files for a while.

Deciding which headers qualify may get a little tricky sometimes, but
the danger is small, and most cases like <set> and <vector> are probably
clear.

Cheers,

Alex.
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 22:26:39 MST