On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:20:50PM +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > If an internal include guard changes - this only means that the external > include guard does not apply anymore (i.e. the #ifndef evaluates to > false), so the file is unconditionally included, effectively. Where's > the difficult-to-find error here? > Sometimes the external guard is wrong already, i.e. the include statement it protects is not related to the guard - because those external guards are most often created by copy&pasting others from the same file. And sometimes, guarded header does not even exist (anymore).
> I'm all in for somebody else doing work :), and I do not doubt that it > is *reasonable* to remove external include guards /in general/. > I only suspect that the minor gain we get from this is not worth the > potential medium or big pain it will cause. That's why I still think the > "all-in-one" thing is not the best approach here. > I cannot imagine changes to OOo code that do not "potentially cause pain" someone somewhere. The thing is, it's a change for the better, removes a ton of unnecessary, fragile & hard to maintain code, and there simply won't be "a better time" for this. Are you suggesting to do this incrementally? In which way would that help, for the individual developer, who needs to resync one or more CWSs against the inevitably changed include portion of her files? Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
