[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GTK patches part 2
From: |
Jan D. |
Subject: |
Re: GTK patches part 2 |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 21:44:24 +0100 (MET) |
>
> "Jan D." <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Well, I don't usually add include:s unless needed. For example,
> > xterm.h includes X11 headers who in turn includes a lot of standard
> > headers. If what is needed gets included that way, I'm fine with it.
>
> You can't rely on that. If *you* make reference to symbols or
> macros, *you* need to include the appropriate header file,
> regardless of whether or not some other header you include also
> needs that header file. Sometimes people just dump all their
There is no such requrement in the C standard, even if it makes
sense for some people.
> includes into one local header file and just include that. It
> gets the job done, but then each file isn't explicitly declaring
> what it needs.
For example, stdlib.h is included by config.h, so it is clearly
redundant to do so elsewhere. I can put in stdio.h just for the
sake of portability.
Jan D.
- GTK patches part 2, Jan D., 2002/12/08
- GTK patches part 2, Jan D., 2002/12/08
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eric Gillespie, 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Jan D., 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eric Gillespie, 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Jan D., 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eric Gillespie, 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 2,
Jan D. <=
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eric Gillespie, 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/11
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eric Gillespie, 2002/12/11
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/12/12
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Jan D., 2002/12/11
- Re: GTK patches part 2, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/11