Jeff Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm sorry, so maybe it is not necessary, but how does doing it the 'right way' add confusion?
There is no 'right way', inside the source tree both are completely equivalent. Changing it adds confusion because you now have 1000 files doing it one way and 3 files doing it differently for no good reason.
This thread has been confusing me. I was under the impression that when appropriate people should be changing "" includes to <>.
I was wondering why I had this impression, and then remembered this section on the wine janatorial page:
`Include statements should use <> instead of ""`
Is this now incorrect?
Confused
-Rob.