Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-29 07:10:07

At 11:36 PM 7/28/99 -0500, Andy Glew wrote:

>>I have read paragraphs 2 and 3 several times and can't see any
>>difference, other that the ordering of sentances and "..." falling
>>back to <...>. Oddly enough, the only problem I ever had with a
>>compiler was with "..." although that was clearly a compiler bug.
>>What are you seeing that I am missing?
>Well... back when I followed the original ANSI C meetings,
>the intent was loosely described as follows:
>#include <header>
>was *NOT* required to include a file. <header> could be a
>precompiled header file, or even could be an object hardwired
>into the compiler. The implementation was *NOT* required to
>disclose how to go from source.h to <header>, and was certainly
>not required to implement the usual UNIX semantics of
>a search path without an initial dot.

Correct if <header> is a standard library header. But the wording of
both standards seem clear that if <header> isn't a standard library
header, then file inclusion is required for both <...> and "..."


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at