Re: [boost] Boost.Build - #include <> vs. ""

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-13 12:39:58

----- Original Message -----
From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 11:00 AM
Subject: [boost] Boost.Build - #include <> vs. ""

> I've just noticed something strange using the Boost.Build system.
> Used to be when I changed a header file in Boost.Threads the build
> system realized this and forced a compile for any source files that
> included them.  Today I noticed that this was no longer working.
> With a little experimentation I discovered that when the header is
> included with quotes ("") it considered it a dependency but when
> included with angle brackets (<>) it wasn't.  I don't know if this
> changed in the Boost Jam stuff or changed because we've switched to
> using FTJam, so I don't know the cause of this change.

It's probably a boost build system thing.
Headers are searched for based on a string defined like this an
allyourbase.jam:

> In any event, this has me wondering about the include policy for
> Boost and whether or not Boost.Build should behave this way.  As a
> VC++ programmer this is the behavior I typically deal with from the
> IDE (where <> includes are not considered dependencies), and it
> supports the specific semantics of the two include types used by my
> compiler.  However, these semantics are not portable, and I wonder
> about the impact for both our guidelines and for how the build stuff
> works.  With the current guidelines of using <> for all Boost
> includes the behavior of the build stuff is a bad thing.  However,
> the behavior may also be more compelling reason to change the policy
> for Boost code.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill Kempf
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>