Re: [PATCH] Update backward/algo.h

[Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org>]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Nathan Myers wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 09:07:22AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > --- libstdc++-v3/include/backward/algo.h Sun Dec 30 09:00:49 2001
> > > + #include <ext/algorithm>
> >
> > this violates the ... rule that forbids any header from
> > sub-including another header whose name has no suffix.
> 
> > It may be necessary to give ext/algorithm a suffix,
> 
> This I would rather prefer not, since ext/algorithm can be directly
> included by the user, and it would be the *only* header directly
> included by the user (not considering the backward ones, of course)
> having a suffix .h. Do you agree?

If I had my 'druthers, I would make the preprocessor append its
own suffix to included names that didn't have one. :-)  

I don't see any reason to have any non-standard headers without 
suffixes.  However...
 
> > or to make it
> > sub-include ext/bits/algorithm.h, and make algo.h include that
> > directly.
> 
> My preference goes to this option. Yours?

... Given that we already have them, I suppose this is the least ugly
alternative.

> But first I would like to post (just a couple of hours) my patch 
> moving all the estensions already present inside ext (rope, slist, 
> hash_map, hash_set) to __gnu_cxx.

OK, but be careful about hitting control-C during your build!
(That goes for everyone, not just Paolo, until this gets fixed.)
Was everybody else unfamiliar with the rule?  Maybe we need to
audit the #includes in the standard headers.

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org