Quantcast

<version.h> versus "version.h"

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

<version.h> versus "version.h"

Rik-4
jwe,

I notice that we have some inconsistency in the #include style for
version.h and defaults.h.  If this is intentional, fine, but a comment
should be added.  Otherwise, I would use "version.h" to indicate the file
is a local include.

corefcn/toplev.cc:#include <version.h>
corefcn/interpreter.cc:#include <version.h>
corefcn/defaults.cc:#include <version.h>

corefcn/help.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/load-save.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-hdf5.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-mat-ascii.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-mat4.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-mat5.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-oct-binary.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/ls-oct-text.cc:#include "version.h"
version.cc:#include "version.h"
corefcn/defun-int.h:#include "version.h"
options-usage.h:#include "version.h"

And likewise for defaults.h

octave-value/ov-usr-fcn.cc:#include <defaults.h>
octave-value/ov-mex-fcn.cc:#include <defaults.h>
octave-value/ov-dld-fcn.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/variables.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/utils.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/oct-hist.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/help.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/dynamic-ld.cc:#include <defaults.h>
corefcn/defaults.cc:#include <defaults.h>

corefcn/interpreter.cc:#include "defaults.h"
corefcn/load-path.cc:#include "defaults.h"
corefcn/ls-mat5.cc:#include "defaults.h"
corefcn/pager.cc:#include "defaults.h"
corefcn/toplev.cc:#include "defaults.h"
octave-value/ov-fcn-handle.cc:#include "defaults.h"
octave-value/ov-java.cc:#include "defaults.h"
octave.cc:#include "defaults.h"
version.cc:#include "defaults.h"

--Rik

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: <version.h> versus "version.h"

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 05/03/2017 01:01 PM, Rik wrote:
> jwe,
>
> I notice that we have some inconsistency in the #include style for
> version.h and defaults.h.  If this is intentional, fine, but a comment
> should be added.  Otherwise, I would use "version.h" to indicate the file
> is a local include.

I think the use of <> for generated files like version.h and defaults.h
was an attempt to avoid picking up old versions of these files in the
source tree when doing a VPATH build in a separate directory.  Something
like that could happen if they were generated in the source tree by
mistake or were left over from a previous build in the source tree.  But
I don't think we should worry about that problem.  If someone configures
and builds in the source tree and then tries to switch to a VPATH build
in a separate directory without cleaning up everything then this will
probably not be the only problem they encounter.

I checked in the following changeset:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/5da300c55e89

jwe


Loading...