Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!ccncsu!purdue!news.cs.indiana.edu!know!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bria!mike
From: mike@bria.UUCP (Michael Stefanik)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question on C programming style
Message-ID: <189@bria.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 91 20:10:48 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.103621.8907@umiami.ir.miami.edu> <1991Apr13.144026.5969@cc.helsinki.fi>
Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike
Organization: MGI Group International, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 26

In an article, wirzenius@cc.helsinki.fi (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|I very much prefer style 1. Style 2 will very likely cause multiple
|inclusions, which at best wastes time (the compiler has to process each
|include every time), and at worst causes errors, since not all headers
|can be included multiple times. The only exception is an include file,
|whose only purpose is to include a set of headers that are needed in all
|or most of the source files in a given project.

Actually, if the include files are written correctly, very *little* time
is wasted and no errors are produced.  It's a simple matter of wrapping
the include file in:

	#ifndef _STDIO_H_
	#define _STDIO_H_
		.
		.
	#endif /* _STDIO_H_ */

Personally, I have found that nested includes are both convenient, and
make a great deal of sense.

-- 
Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc, Los Angeles | Opinions stated are never realistic
Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If MS-DOS didn't exist, who would UNIX programmers have to make fun of?