Naming of multiple inclusion guards in MinGW headers

Guys,

I've noticed that we have some headers guarded by macros named according
to a _FOO_H_ convention (with a trailing underscore), while others
conform to _BAR_H (without the trailing underscore); we really need to
standardize on one or the other.

I have a mild preference for the latter, but can accept the former; I
cannot accept indefinite persistence of the present inconsistency.

Any strong contrary opinions, before I embark on a standardization
campaign?  (If you disagree, and don't speak up *now*, I will begin to
move toward adoption the _BAR_H style, just as soon as I find a window
of opportunity; (which may be two or three months hence).

-- 
Regards,
Keith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud 
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y