emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?


From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:06:03 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6

Am 28.07.2010 04:23, schrieb Óscar Fuentes:
Emacs sources use the idiom

#include<config.h>

Is there a specific reason for this? Usually the curly braces

Hi,

just a language question, not to get non-native english speakers -as you and me :-) bewildered.
Does "<...>" really mean curly?

IMHO these "{...}" are curly...

Do I misunderstand something?

Best regards,

Andreas

--
https://code.launchpad.net/~a-roehler/python-mode
https://code.launchpad.net/s-x-emacs-werkstatt/




  are for
headers that live outside the project. Some code analysis tools assume
that. And some compilers (including gcc, AFAIK) use a different
procedure for locating headers surrounded by curly braces, which may
produce unexpected results for headers included from config.h.

Any objections to replacing<config.h>  and<epaths.h>  with "config.h"
and "epaths.h" ?







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]