Re: [boost] Re: #include <boost/...> to #include "boost/..." transition?

From: Noel Yap (yap_noel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-20 15:38:40

--- Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At 02:09 PM 7/20/2002, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> 
>  >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:03:23 -0400, "David
> Abrahams"
>  ><david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>  >>...
>  >>What really determines whether a library header
> file is a "header" or a
>  >>"source file"?
>  >>
>  >
>  >Well, since you are one of the standard experts
> there must be
>  >something wrong in what I know. So far I thought
> that in the standard
>  >terminology 'header' is what we colloquially call
> 'standard header'.
>  >In other words, there's no 'user header' like
> foo.hpp or
>  >my_library.hpp. They are simply source files.
>  >
>  >In fact, the wording of 16.2 confirms this belief
> (it speaks of
>  >'header' for the #include <...> form and of
> 'source file' for the
>  >#include "..." form). Moreover, a brute search of
> the expression
>  >"standard header" in the whole standard yielded no
> occurrence in
>  >normative text.
>  >
>  >Opinion?
> 
> That's my understanding also.  To the standard, a
> header is a standard 
> library header.  There is no such thing as a user
> header, only a user 
> source file.

>From what I understand from _C: A Complete Reference_,
the standard differentiates between the two so that
#include <stdio.h> will work even on systems where
stdio.h is an invalid filename.  Can anyone confirm
this?

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com