Again: FFI syntax

[Michael Weber]

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 22:59:37 +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote:
> So, it all boils down to the question of whether this
> (probably rare) case justifies the (not very large) extra
> complexity of allowing header file names enclosed in <>.
> 
> I am happy either way, but slightly tend to the simpler
> solution (not allowing <>).  Would everybody who prefers to
> have <> please say so and briefly say why?


Sorry for dropping into the discussion, but...

Using "" instead of <> once caused me some problems (can't recall what
it was in particular).  However, since then my standard was to always
use <> and handle the "" case by adding -I. parameters...  That would
also have the benefit of being somewhat less dependant on the
behaviour of a implementation (as somebody quoted from the standard).
If you put -I. in front, it will always get searched before include dirs 
given by subsequent -I options, right?


Cheers,
Michael
-- 
() ASCII ribbon campaign |  Chair for Computer Science  II  | GPG: F65C68CD
/\ against HTML mail     |       RWTH Aachen, Germany       | PGP: 1D0DD0B9
                     "I WILL NOT SELL SCHOOL PROPERTY"
                          -- Bart Simpson in 7F10