Should g++-v3/ext be added to the search path for g++?

[Craig Rodrigues]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:55:09PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 03:19:49PM -0500, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> > 
> > Should g++-v3/ext be added to the search-path for g++?
> 
> My opinion:  absolutely not.  Those are not standard headers; they're in
> ext for a reason.  If users want the extensions, it's trivial to get them:
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#5_4

OK, the only point I would bring up is that people who read
the SGI STL documentation: http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Rope.html
will not see any mention of including <ext/rope>.  The SGI
STL documentation is quite good, so this could lead to confusion
(as it confused me).

However, as you mention, these features are extensions, so it may
not be unreasonable to expect the user to specify an include directory
that is not the same as for the rest of the STL.
-- 
Craig Rodrigues        
http://www.gis.net/~craigr    
rodrigc@mediaone.net