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

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

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?

> 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.

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