Another related practice we should standardize is that, Google style guide suggests here <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Names_and_Order_of_Includes> :
1) If you rely on symbols from bar.h, don't count on the fact that you included foo.h which (currently) includes bar.h: include bar.h yourself, 2) unless foo.h explicitly demonstrates its intent to provide you the symbols of bar.h. 3) However, any includes present in the related header do not need to be included again in the related cc (i.e., foo.cc can rely on foo.h's includes). We obviously follow 1) but AFAIK we don't follow 2) and 3), instead we have been doing "include everything needed yourself, no exceptions". It would be great to clarify this in the Mesos style guide as well. --- @xujyan <https://twitter.com/xujyan> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Yan Xu <xuj...@apple.com> wrote: > For a cpp file foo.cpp, our style guide instructs folks to put the header > foo.hpp at the top of the include list: https://github.com/apache/meso > s/blob/master/docs/c%2B%2B-style-guide.md#order-of-includes > > This is consistent with Google style guide but in reality most of the our > files follow the rule of "treat foo.hpp the same way as other project > headers". > > Since this rule has been introduced to the Mesos style guide I haven't > seen much adoption. Most committers still observe the "old" rule when > creating new files and have been instructing contributors to do the same. > > Given the current status I'd suggest we revert the style guide on this? > It's only adding confusion and I don't see the need to do a sweeping change > to the codebase to comply with the new rule. > > Thoughts? > > Yan >
