From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 18:30:49
On 2/6/02 3:23 PM, "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> From: "vesa_karvonen" <vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden]>
>> Are you saying that it has finally been acknowledged that the
>> #include "boost/..." form is more correct?
> That's not under discussion. What's been decided is that #include paths
> relative to the #including file rather than a known #include path should be
> avoided (e.g. #include "../foo.h", #include "bar.h", etc.)
No, you're mistaken. Beman and I were discussing this. Take another look at
I had forgotten that you were a strong advocate of <boost/...>. I am a
strong advocate of choosing either <boost/...> and "boost/..." rather than
using a mix of both.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk