<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <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 <a class="email" href="mailto:sbergman@redhat.com" title="Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>"> Stephan Bergmann</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=65108#c11">comment #11</a>) > 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 ? :-) 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> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>