From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:39:10 +0800 From: "Rogelio Serrano" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Include guards and multiple includes In-Reply-To: <219D85AA-959D-464C-90C2-0F132809F0B9@telus.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <219D85AA-959D-464C-90C2-0F132809F0B9@telus.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: d2aa9888-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 10/21/06, Paul Lalonde wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm trying to convince some non-believers that include files should > not include other include files, and that instead they should state > their dependencies; they want hard data before they commit to such a > scheme. > > Is there some study kicking around that I could point them at rather > than re-factor our code base and time the resulting builds? I know > the plan9 headers largely follow this pattern. > > Paul I think this has more to do with minimising the preprocessor logic. I like the plan 9 include tree more than the traditional unix include mess. In my programs I dont use macros anywhere. none. nada. zero. If one could only get rid of the preprocessor... -- the thing i like with my linux pc is that i can sum up my complaints in 5 items