| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Header File cleanup. |
| Date: | 2000-05-29 22:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0005291900300.608-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'll give you a different source to read ... the archives :) This one has
been bounced back and forth a few times already, with *at least* twice
that I can think of where to even shifted from one to the other and back
again *roll eyes*
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Enlighten me:
>
> Why use #include "header.h" over #include <header.h> for exported interface
> header files? I've read the man and info page, and understand the differences
> from a C preprocessor standpoint, so, suggestions to read those sources will be
> piped to /dev/null -- I'm looking for why _we_ do it one way over the other.
>
> The reason I am asking is to see if anyone using the RPM's have had problems
> #include'ing our headers.... but, as well, to see just what the advantages of
> "" over <> are for our exported headers.
>
> --
> Lamar Owen
> WGCR Internet Radio
> 1 Peter 4:11
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-05-29 22:08:51 | RE: Berkeley DB... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-29 21:12:20 | Re: Timestamp data type problems |