Re: Naming of multiple inclusion guards in MinGW headers

On 05-17-2015 05:03, Keith Marshall wrote:
> 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.

w32api seem to be almost uniformly using _BAR_H

# Using _FOO_H_
$ grep -ril 'ifndef.*_H_' .|wc -l
4

# Using either _FOO_H_ or _BAR_H
$ grep -ril 'ifndef.*_H' .|wc -l
394

mingwrt prefers _FOO_H_

# Using _FOO_H_
$ grep -ril 'ifndef.*_H_' .|wc -l
43

# Using either _FOO_H_ or _BAR_H
$ grep -ril 'ifndef.*_H' .|wc -l
55

At this point, if you want to harmonize mingwrt and w32api, it seems to
be easier to go with _BAR_H.

Regards,

Cesar

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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