From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26339 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2013 22:51:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26317 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jun 2013 22:51:20 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,TW_CX autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f172.google.com) (209.85.216.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:51:20 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j10so4039421qcx.3 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:51:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=c43PN5GwNTdb8NiT4ux2fkA2OORpQ55O3ioovh6fp7E=; b=LgBT/3qFy41MejHSi0zryHAJXmJGetzhs2mzfamw4TgLpVltAlBkGq5yRD6sybteYz gDV1zNUroOh+r9EBbm2AtIYCCU4mGcLgTM8XrXgbf6eW0KOU7LadAntCycN50RgZ6UD3 9YJbnMaxtZpKtQii2x2uKX/cHQ8Fqgw6Q4YiLdcuDXwLmWQ8YEbQdm+6VyqcEherfk2U hP7vgL9pgzU0hZY+0wop4ZTTBGyz9nyAnd0nR/jc9fy2HHyIgEY1vHTZaFY0e/em7zpI fTlrZBVU3cnUqxgoDlGiob+MIorY/E6QtlxaCn1oiWH4PWMhyXXYDcELmyw4kS9o7ZSX e/5g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.71.203 with SMTP id x11mr13383201qeu.19.1370904678412; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.135.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:51:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51B5E7D5.9070802@google.com> References: <51B0B0ED.5090508@redhat.com> <51B0F122.6020301@redhat.com> <1370810089.2365.5.camel@yam-132-YW-E178-FTW> <51B5E7D5.9070802@google.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [c++-concepts] code review From: Lawrence Crowl To: Diego Novillo Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Oleg Endo , Jason Merrill , Andrew Sutton , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Benjamin Kosnik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGWw5wWv9IUlLaNwt8tdcReMyIojCw8o5ied34StDfI3StHQSzJKwHq0EVQrGCQqrYDZcCoXKdfuSVj2tLNZMQvyFclfzwYSOZwzI7G/bFgBQ5zkZX1WqpMHybUelWXG3grKMYd7h1/MWYz3qspAHOzCFB+o96F184YYvj4Z7z80ANXrESjb/NiBEWn/eI9X5JRwomOhSRE+RnT+h0d4sdsDqH+Q== X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00543.txt.bz2 On 6/10/13, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 2013-06-09 20:34 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > So, my advice is for GCC source code to forget about the > > headers for the most part. I can see an instance where > > or would make a difference but given point (1) above, > > no it doesn't. Just use the traditional headers and > > be done with it. > > > > Maybe I should have included this in our C++ coding standards, > > but I don't know how Benjamin, Lawrence, and Diego fee about it. > > Sounds reasonable to me. Me too. The split in headers always felt excessively artifical to me. -- Lawrence Crowl