> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Chris Bagley <chris.bag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> (include-local "some_header_lib.h") > > > > I'd love to hear some thoughts on this. I'm happy to get this done if > > it's approved. > > Makes sense. If we were starting from scratch perhaps we could have > (include "<foo.h>") and (include "foo.h") instead. (include > "\"foo.h\"") would be strange, right? > > Anyway, include-local seems like the way to go.
I think it's better for the groveler to add the source directory to the include path, so that the distinction doesn't matter. with grovel.c being <<< #include <foo.h> >>> cc -I/path/to/sources/ grovel.c will then search for foo.c first in /path/to/sources/ and then in the default system include path. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
