[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use standard inclusion scheme for FreeType headers. (issue 35580043)
|
From: |
dak |
|
Subject: |
Re: Use standard inclusion scheme for FreeType headers. (issue 35580043) |
|
Date: |
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:59:50 +0000 |
On 2013/12/10 21:20:54, lemzwerg wrote:
My patch is very simple, as you can see, just replacing the hardcoded
header
paths with macros (this is what I refer as `standard inclusion
scheme') to make
it compile. The `reckless' programming was there before me, so to
say, and I
admit that I haven't tried in any way to make it more elegant.
No, it wasn't. Before your change, header _names_ were used for
inclusion. Those do not require to be "defined" before use. After your
change, header _macros_ were used for inclusion. Those require to be
defined before use.
The problem of using macros without reliably ensuring their definition
before use was introduced by this patch.
I fully agree that it makes sense to add
#include "freetype.hh"
or
#include <ft2build.h>
where FreeType header macro names are used.
What does Freetype state about where its header macro names are defined?
It is obvious that ft2build.h will cause their definition (or this
would not have compiled) but it's not clear that this definition is not
also incidental rather than well-defined.
https://codereview.appspot.com/35580043/