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

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-21 16:43:22

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 07:53:33 -0400, "David Abrahams"
<david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>There's a time for worrying about what's in the standard, and there's a time
>for looking at what's going to work well in the contexts in which Boost is
>deployed. At this point I think it almost doesn't matter what the standard
>says about headers, especially since it says so little with any definitive
>clarity. I think Boost should do what other "similar" libraries do, whatever
>that is. We ought to look at how things like tools.h++, QT, etc. get used.
>

I agree about the fact that the standard leaves us without an answer
(though I'm incline to think that 'header' is synonym of 'standard
header'). Anyhow, Mr. Dawes request appeared to me as motivated by
avoiding a construct (#include <>) that is not guaranteed to be
acceptable for user files. At least we are not sure it is. On the
other hand, if one is not worried about this, we already have
something that "works". So why changing it only because other
libraries -maybe- do it differently?

Of course, if there's some _other_ intent in imitating other libraries
(i.e. something different from being scrupulously standard compliant)
then things change. Is there?

P.S.: I don't want in any way to be disrespectful or saying something
that is up to moderators/administrators of the list, so please inform
me if I'm violating some rule; I'd like to make a request: it would be
much easier for those who follow the list via the newsgroup interface
if everybody avoided spurious 'Re:' prefixes in the mail subject. They
lead news readers to put answers in a 'different thread', while
avoiding them requires no particular effort from those who simply use
ordinary mail. My apologies again if I'm not entitled to make such a
request.

Genny.