<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Clean-up header includes (global/local)"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65108#c12">Comment # 12</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW --- - Clean-up header includes (global/local)"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65108">bug 65108</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sbergman@redhat.com" title="Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>"> <span class="fn">Stephan Bergmann</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=65108#c11">comment #11</a>)
<span class="quote">> I'd suggest my compromise: using "" for includes in the same directory as
> the cxx file, and <> for everything else; clearly we'd need a script to
> identify and re-write for those. Do we have such a thing ? :-)</span >
A conforming compiler is not require to support #include <...> for anything but
the standard headers. In practice, the compilers we use today do. So, all
other things being equal, the safest thing to do would be to use #include "..."
for inclusion of all of LO's source files.
However, the odd behavior of MSVC described in <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=65108#c8">comment 8</a>,
<<a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/36k2cdd4%28v=vs.80%29.aspx">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/36k2cdd4%28v=vs.80%29.aspx</a>> "#include
Directive (C/C++)" can be used as an argument in favor of <...>. Though I
would probably use <...> exclusively then, and not even stick to "..." for
inclusion of source files from the same directory.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>