[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:46:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Seems very silly to me ("don't do that!") but ...
>>
>> At this point I wonder how dangerous is to make that (an out of source
>> build after an in-source build) since the out of source build puts lots
>> of products on the source tree directory (.el, .elc, DOC...) Maybe those
>> are identical on most cases, but think on the possibility of a bug on
>> the Elisp machinary of the emacs executable created by one of the
>> builds, being masked by the .el[c] files created by the other.
>
> That doesn't happen. elc-files are portable, and DOC should be also.
> elc-files are in-tree even with an out-tree build, that is one of the
> nice things, not having to do make bootstrap all the time.
As explained above, if the .elc files are corrupted by a buggy Emacs or
a buggy Emacs ends using healthy .elc files, by sharing the produced
.elc/.el files among several builds you are hiding a bug. Mixing the
products of different builds is never a good idea.
[snip]
>> So I agree that "don't do that" should be the right answer.
>>
>
> Considering that <> enables a real use-case and "" does not, and the
> fact that using "" gives exactly no benefits what so ever, please
> stick to <>. It is not even less to type. I can't imagine any reason
> for switching now.
Maybe is my hideous English, but as explained on my original message <>
is giving me problems with some tool.
- Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Miles Bader, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, immanuel litzroth, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/07/29