Enlighten me:

Why use #include "header.h" over #include <header.h> for exported interface
header files?  I've read the man and info page, and understand the differences
from a C preprocessor standpoint, so, suggestions to read those sources will be
piped to /dev/null -- I'm looking for why _we_ do it one way over the other.

The reason I am asking is to see if anyone using the RPM's have had problems
#include'ing our headers....  but, as well, to see just what the advantages of
"" over <> are for our exported headers.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Mon, 29 May 2000 15:36:57 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Header File cleanup.

I'll give you a different source to read ... the archives :)  This one has
been bounced back and forth a few times already, with *at least* twice
that I can think of where to even shifted from one to the other and back
again *roll eyes*

On Mon, 29 May 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Enlighten me:
> 
> Why use #include "header.h" over #include <header.h> for exported interface
> header files?  I've read the man and info page, and understand the differences
> from a C preprocessor standpoint, so, suggestions to read those sources will be
> piped to /dev/null -- I'm looking for why _we_ do it one way over the other.
> 
> The reason I am asking is to see if anyone using the RPM's have had problems
> #include'ing our headers....  but, as well, to see just what the advantages of
> "" over <> are for our exported headers.
> 
> --
> Lamar Owen
> WGCR Internet Radio
> 1 Peter 4:11
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 29 May 2000 19:01:11 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Header File cleanup.
On Mon, 29 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> I'll give you a different source to read ... the archives :)  This one has
> been bounced back and forth a few times already, with *at least* twice

Well, I had read in the archives some already, but, after getting your message,
I looked again.  And found src/tools/pginclude/pgfixinclude and friends.

HOWEVER, for exported headers that are installed, this is suboptimal (not to
arbitrarily reopen a can of worms).  There is a bug listed on RedHat's bugzilla
about this very issue.  I'll check a little more, and I may have to undo
pgfixincludes handiwork for the exported headers packaged in the rpm -devel
subpackage.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Mon, 29 May 2000 19:41:46 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Header File cleanup.
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> Enlighten me:
> Why use #include "header.h" over #include <header.h> for exported interface
> header files?

As Marc mentioned, we've gone round on that before.  I think the bias
for using "" is largely because it's convenient (or even necessary,
in some scenarios) for building Postgres itself.  I am not aware of
any compelling arguments why <> would be better from the perspective
of a client app trying to use already-installed Postgres header files
--- if you know some reasons, let's hear 'em!

I'm prepared to believe that the client's-eye view might favor something
different from the developer's-eye view.  I think you were suggesting
that we might want to replace "" by <> in installed copies of the
headers.  I'd support that if it were shown necessary, but I'd want to
be shown first...

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 30 May 2000 02:06:08 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Header File cleanup. 