From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-20 13:09:24
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:03:23 -0400, "David Abrahams"
<david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
>Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:30 AM
>Subject: [boost] #include <boost/...> to #include "boost/..." transition?
>
>
>> As has been discussed many times in the past, the C++ standard provides
>> #include <...> for "headers" (which are only well-defined in the standard
>> for the standard library), and #include "..." for "source files" (which
>> includes the Boost header files). See section 16.2.
>>
>> For historical reasons relating to problem compilers, Boost code has
>always
>> used <boost/...> instead of "boost/...", and thus relies on
>> implementation-defined behavior (16.2/2).
>>
>> The historical reasons no longer apply. Should we being to transition
>> Boost code to the more correct #include "boost/..." form?
>
>I guess I really don't understand the issues here. Other libraries I know
>about that get installed in central locations on users' systems use <> by
>convention as well. For example,
>http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/ext/simpleExample.html says:
>
>The first line of our file can be:
>
> #include <Python.h>
>
>
>What really determines whether a library header file is a "header" or a
>"source file"?
>
Well, since you are one of the standard experts there must be
something wrong in what I know. So far I thought that in the standard
terminology 'header' is what we colloquially call 'standard header'.
In other words, there's no 'user header' like foo.hpp or
my_library.hpp. They are simply source files.
In fact, the wording of 16.2 confirms this belief (it speaks of
'header' for the #include <...> form and of 'source file' for the
#include "..." form). Moreover, a brute search of the expression
"standard header" in the whole standard yielded no occurrence in
normative text.
Opinion?
Genny.