I was just going through and changing the include guards that don't follow the dillo convention, and then I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard and it reminds me that the C++ standard prohibits '_'s at the beginning. Does anyone care enough to have an opinion? If we want to rm the leading or surrounding underscores, I might as well do that too before committing. [pop/smtp isn't working at the moment, so I'm sending this through webmail. Let's hope they doesn't mangle line wrapping or anything.]
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 03:09:53PM -0400, corvid@lavabit.com wrote:
I was just going through and changing the include guards that don't follow the dillo convention, and then I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard and it reminds me that the C++ standard prohibits '_'s at the beginning.
Does anyone care enough to have an opinion? If we want to rm the leading or surrounding underscores, I might as well do that too before committing.
+1 for removing the undescores
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 03:09:53PM -0400, corvid@lavabit.com wrote:
I was just going through and changing the include guards that don't follow the dillo convention, and then I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard and it reminds me that the C++ standard prohibits '_'s at the beginning.
Does anyone care enough to have an opinion? If we want to rm the leading or surrounding underscores, I might as well do that too before committing.
A "D_" prefix looks OK to me. e.g. #ifndef D_BINARYCONST_H #define D_BINARYCONST_H ... #endif /* D_BINARYCONST_H */ -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 03:09:53PM -0400, corvid@lavabit.com wrote:
I was just going through and changing the include guards that don't follow the dillo convention, and then I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard and it reminds me that the C++ standard prohibits '_'s at the beginning.
Does anyone care enough to have an opinion? If we want to rm the leading or surrounding underscores, I might as well do that too before committing.
A "D_" prefix looks OK to me.
e.g.
#ifndef D_BINARYCONST_H #define D_BINARYCONST_H
...
#endif /* D_BINARYCONST_H */
Is that D_IO_, D_DLIB_, etc., on the dillo side and LOUT_, DW_, etc., on the dw side? (not sure whether dw is still supposed to maintain an independence of sorts...)
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:59:09AM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 03:09:53PM -0400, corvid@lavabit.com wrote:
I was just going through and changing the include guards that don't follow the dillo convention, and then I glanced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Include_guard and it reminds me that the C++ standard prohibits '_'s at the beginning.
Does anyone care enough to have an opinion? If we want to rm the leading or surrounding underscores, I might as well do that too before committing.
A "D_" prefix looks OK to me.
e.g.
#ifndef D_BINARYCONST_H #define D_BINARYCONST_H
...
#endif /* D_BINARYCONST_H */
Is that D_IO_, D_DLIB_, etc., on the dillo side and LOUT_, DW_, etc., on the dw side? (not sure whether dw is still supposed to maintain an independence of sorts...)
Good question... I'd say in that case an all around "G_" or "IG_" prefix (INCLUDE GUARD) may fit better. -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (3)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de