Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:56:56 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: sos@sos.freebsd.dk, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr Subject: Re: #include problem breaks current Message-ID: <199705081756.TAA06245@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans's message of Thu, 8 May 1997 08:30:53 %2B1000 References: <199705072230.IAA21803@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >> Could we please get this mess sorted out, I'm sick and tired of all > >> that nitpicking with include files lately :(, is it REALLY nessesary > >> to make us different from the rest of the world ???? > > > >To not have hidden dependencies everywhere? To have include files > >that actually work according to POSIX? > > POSIX generally specifies including <sys/types.h> yourself. The rpc > headers are not specified by POSIX. What I want is all include > files to work according to ANSI-extended-to-cover-all-include-files. > In particular, include files should neither depend on each other nor > declare each others symbols (either by including each other or directly), > except for a few well documented warty cases like `size_t'. I'll try to go through all the include files and at least document the cases where they depend on each other. Then we can discuss what to do about each case afterwards. Eivind. Sigh. All this fuzz "just to close a PR"...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705081756.TAA06245>