[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Are "incomplete" headers bugworthy?

On 01-Apr-03, 09:27 (CST), Matthias Urlichs <smurf@noris.de> wrote: 
> Some header files require 
> #include <some_header.h>
> #include <whatever_I_really_want.h>
> instead of a simple
> #include <whatever_I_really_want.h>
> [*snip*]
> IMHO, it is reasonable for all C header files to include any other header file
> they need for compileability. My question is, is there a consensus on this
> reasonableness?

While I prefer to do as you suggest in my code, there is a
significant faction that disagrees, and a substantial body of code
that would be affected. You might check out the last section of
http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/pikestyle.html for the reasoning.

> If so, should there be a Lintian test for this? (I would do that.)

It's really an upstream issue, and a style issue, andI don't think Lintian
is an appropriate tool for that.

Now, if a piece of code fileX #includes fileA than needs fileB, and
neither fileA nor fileX #include fileB, then it's a bug in X or fileA.

The solution to all autoconf problems is to remove autoconf and write
properly portable code and build systems. But that also is an upstream


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: