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

["Óscar Fuentes" <oscarfv@telefonica.net>]

Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

>>> 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.

As explained above, if the .elc files are corrupted by a buggy Emacs or
a buggy Emacs ends using healthy .elc files, by sharing the produced
.elc/.el files among several builds you are hiding a bug. Mixing the
products of different builds is never a good idea.

[snip]

>> 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.

Maybe is my hideous English, but as explained on my original message <>
is giving me problems with some tool.