Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-29 08:59:39

From: Beman Dawes <beman_at_[hidden]>
> 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
> real
> >>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 "..."
> forms.

Actually, I think it is clear that neither form is required to
do file inclusion, or even that the system have any concept of

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