Re: [Boost-users] #include directives

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 14:31:19

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:09:23 +0100, Louis Lavery
> <louis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Just curious as to why boost mixes its #include
>>directives. For instance in boost/any.hpp we
>>have...
>>
>>#include "boost/config.hpp"
>>#include <boost/throw_exception.hpp>
>>
>>...(this is from boost_1_32_0).
>
> Because people don't pay attention. 

No, it's because there was never any consensus reached about which is
correct, or even if one is more correct than the other.

> There was an IMHO justified proposal by Beman Dawes to replace the
> <> form (which was used for historical reasons)

I note that Beman is now using the <> form.

> That led to the following DR, which is IMHO only wasting committee time:
>
>   <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#370>

I note that interpreting the standard according as proposed there would
decisively render a huge body of existing practice non-compliant.  For
example:

     #include <Python.h>

which is the standard recommended practice for people using Python's
'C' API, would suddenly become the wrong thing to do.  So it's not
clear to me, anyway, that it's a useful direction to be going in.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com