peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/14/89)
In article <9345@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > Well, a good reason for nonetheless letting the compiler take care of it > for you is that otherwise the user of the header needs to also know the > special lock symbol for the header. General design principles argue that > the symbol should be the private property of the header. Well, if you're working on a large project that has standardised the usage of "*_H" as the gatekeeper for "*.h", then this becomes a moot point. For example, look at the standard AmigaDOS include files. And certainly headers that nest such includes can be expected to sync with other headers that do the same thing. I wasn't suggesting putting the test in your ".c" files. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.