I remember discussing this issue a while ago on the mailing list [1]. There
were two votes in favor from Benjamin Hindman and Benjamin Mahler, and no votes
against it. There’s also an accepted Jira entry MESOS-2673 to add the ordering
into our style guide.
[1]
Currently there is no consensus on the order of includes. I'm currently
working on MESOS-2275 and would suggest, that we follow the rules from the
Google C++ Style Guide (
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Names_and_Order_of_Includes)
as much as possible but also follow the current
We posted a fix for the inconsistent include order of and <
gmock/gmock.h> making it consistent with the Google Styleguide (
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide
.html#Names_and_Order_of_Includes).
Check the Jira/Review Request for details:
don't have a corresponding header).
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jörg Schad jo...@mesosphere.io wrote:
I would like to propose that regarding the header include order we follow
the Google Styleguide completely. We currently have an undocumented
exception in that we do not include direct
if there was intention behind it.
It should be pointed out that this rule doesn't apply to all .cpp files,
yes? (e.g. tests don't have a corresponding header).
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jörg Schad jo...@mesosphere.io wrote:
I would like to propose that regarding the header include order we
a corresponding header).
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Jörg Schad jo...@mesosphere.io wrote:
I would like to propose that regarding the header include order we follow
the Google Styleguide completely. We currently have an undocumented
exception in that we do not include direct headers first
I would like to propose that regarding the header include order we follow
the Google Styleguide completely. We currently have an undocumented
exception in that we do not include direct headers first in the
corresponding implementation files (i.e. abc.hpp - abc.cpp).
The reasons, and examples
