Closed elfring closed 7 years ago
Could you please explain why this is meaningful? I typically distinguish between these two forms of include directives on purpose, to avoid mismatches with header files from the preprocessor environment.
I suggest to reconsider the consequences of the following wording from the section "16.2 Source file inclusion" in the standard specification for the programming language "C++".
…
The named source file is searched for in an implementation-defined manner. If this search is not supported, or if the search fails, the directive is reprocessed as if it read
#include <h-char-sequence> new-line
…
From the last link you posted:
include "file"
This variant is used for header files **of your own program**.
And that's what I want for those files, because they are not system files, as it is mentioned from the link for angle brackets:
include
This variant is used for system header files.
So I currently don't see why it should be replaced.
There are different opinions about the handling of the involved implementation-defined behaviour.
For the time being I'll keep it as it is.
I suggest to distinguish better between the include style for ordinary programs and customised libraries. How much do you care where the include files are safely stored for a software library?
Would you like to replace any double quotes by angle brackets around file names for include statements?