On 02/11/2014 04:48 AM, Kinkie wrote: > The topic I'm thinking of is the policy of autoconf-detecting some > system headers we use. While this is undoubtably good for C- and > system- headers, it doesn't make much sense for pure C++ headers, > which are very strongly defined by the standard and for which there is > no compatilibty wrapper. In these cases, making the include > conditional will only result in a less-readable error message when the > build eventually fails. > > What do you think?
I agree that there is little point in guarding standard headers that provide required classes that we do not provide a replacement for. IIRC, I have not been adding _new_ guards for such header files for a while. Deciding which headers qualify may get a little tricky sometimes, but the danger is small, and most cases like <set> and <vector> are probably clear. Cheers, Alex.
