Kristian Nielsen wrote:
> Mats Kindahl <mats@stripped> writes:
>
>> I have a proposal for rules regarding the naming and usage of include guard. I
>> see currently in the code include guards missing, but also used in odd ways that
>> makes it more difficult to automatically check header files for missing include
>> guards.
>
> Sounds good!
>
>> - Include guards shall be of the form ``PACKAGE_HEADER_INCLUDED``,
>> that is: the package name followed by the base file name (excluding
>> the extension) in all capital letters, numbers, and underscores. The
>> package name and the header name is separated by an underscore.
>
>> The extension is omitted because there are different naming
>> conventions (.h, .hh, .hpp) and the choice of naming convention for
>> header files should not affect the include guard name.
>
> $ find . -name '*.h' -o -name '*.hpp' -o -name '*.ic' | xargs egrep '^#define.*_H'|wc
> -l
> 1735
> $ find . -name '*.h' -o -name '*.hpp' -o -name '*.ic' | xargs egrep
> '^#define.*_INCLUDED'|wc -l
> 9
>
> Please do not change the existing code style without good reason. Clearly the
> current style is using _H, not _INCLUDED, and _H will be as easy for
> developers to undestand as _INCLUDED, no matter the name of the file.
>
> So let's keep PACKAGE_HEADER_H, please?
Given the number of include guards in the *_H format, it makes sense.
Thanks for the feedback.
/Matz
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Kristian.
--
Mats Kindahl
Senior Software Engineer
Database Technology Group
Sun Microsystems
