Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?

["Jan Djärv" <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

Óscar Fuentes skrev 2010-07-28 05.25:
> Miles Bader<miles@gnu.org>  writes:
>
>> I think this was discussed recently, and I seem to recall that the
>> reason given was that "config.h" doesn't work if the user tries to build
>> with an out-of-tree object directory _after_ having previously built in
>> the source tree (without an intervening "make distclean" in the source
>> dir).
>
> Thanks.
>
> BTW, following that logic, shouldn't buildobj.h be included with curly
> braces as well?

Yes, I think it should.

>
>> Seems very silly to me ("don't do that!") but ...
>
> At this point I wonder how dangerous is to make that (an out of source
> build after an in-source build) since the out of source build puts lots
> of products on the source tree directory (.el, .elc, DOC...) Maybe those
> are identical on most cases, but think on the possibility of a bug on
> the Elisp machinary of the emacs executable created by one of the
> builds, being masked by the .el[c] files created by the other.

That doesn't happen.  elc-files are portable, and DOC should be also.
elc-files are in-tree even with an out-tree build, that is one of the nice 
things, not having to do make bootstrap all the time.

But for the most part, what starts as an in-tree build gets moved to an 
out-build tree, mostly because a bug fix became a longer project than just the 
simple quick-fix.

>
> So I agree that "don't do that" should be the right answer.
>

Considering that <> enables a real use-case and "" does not, and the fact that 
using "" gives exactly no benefits what so ever, please stick to <>.  It is 
not even less to type.  I can't imagine any reason for switching now.

	Jan D.