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

From: parksie ;-\) (parksie_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-22 13:03:08

Two comments:

1. Include paths: I mentally associate <file> with a "system" header
(which Boost, technically, is not, but I use it that way, in the same
way I use the Standard Library). I normally assume "file" to mean a file
that can't be guaranteed elsewhere, i.e. it is part of my project or
some other in-house development. Whether this means the same sort of
thing to anyone else is personal opinion.

2. Whining about signatures? Somehow I don't think flaming people over
things like this is particularly productive. Oh, and you yourself seem
to make interesting reading as far as your attitude goes. I don't know
if you moderate this list or if you're a core Boost developer, but tact
is a very useful skill. I quote:

>   By the way Victor A. Wagner Jr, I find your 
> socio-politically-motivated signature line very offensive and 
> thoroughly inappropriate for Boost.  Please remove it.  
> Please ensure that it will not appear in any of your future 
> postings to Boost.

>   Beman, for these reasons I expect you to withdraw your request
> to switch from #include <relativePath> to #include "relativePath".

"Expect you to"? He asked for comments (which you gave). But you're not
the only person on this list...

Mike.

PS: Just tryin' to keep the peace here, since I don't want my Inbox
filled up with slanging matches ;-)