Re: [Boost-users] #include directives

Gennaro Prota writes:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:09:23 +0100, Louis Lavery wrote:

...

Just curious as to why boost mixes its #include directives. For instance in boost/any.hpp we have...

#include "boost/config.hpp" #include

...(this is from boost_1_32_0).

Because people don't pay attention.

No, it's because there was never any consensus reached about which is correct, or even if one is more correct than the other.

There was an IMHO justified proposal by Beman Dawes to replace the <> form (which was used for historical reasons)

I note that Beman is now using the <> form.

That led to the following DR, which is IMHO only wasting committee time:

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#370

I note that interpreting the standard according as proposed there would decisively render a huge body of existing practice non-compliant. For example: #include which is the standard recommended practice for people using Python's 'C' API, would suddenly become the wrong thing to do. So it's not clear to me, anyway, that it's a useful direction to be going in. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com