[cadcdev-tiki] [305] tiki/src/gl/drawables: Tiki: win32 build fixes

[Dan P. <ba...@al...>]

Commits are working again (or should be). Ubuntu package names were a  
little different :)

Begin forwarded message:

> Modified: tiki/src/gl/drawables/cursor.cpp (304 => 305)--- tiki/src/ 
> gl/drawables/cursor.cpp	2006-02-18 16:34:24 UTC (rev 304) +++ tiki/ 
> src/gl/drawables/cursor.cpp	2006-02-18 16:34:52 UTC (rev 305)@@  
> -6,13 +6,12 @@  Copyright (C)2005 Sam Steele   */  -#include <Tiki/ 
> tiki.h> -#include <Tiki/gl.h> -#include <Tiki/hid.h> -#include  
> <Tiki/drawables/pointerArrow.h> -#include <Tiki/drawables/cursor.h> 
> +#include "pch.h" -using namespace Tiki;+#include "Tiki/hid.h"  
> +#include "Tiki/drawables/pointerArrow.h" +#include "Tiki/drawables/ 
> cursor.h" + using namespace Tiki::GL;  using namespace Tiki::Hid;

Sorry for the goop there, Apple Mail doesn't seem too good at quoting  
HTML...

Anyway, are those changes from <> to "" needed for Win32? I'd kinda  
like to keep the <> if we can.

I know that in practice it's mainly a stylistic issue these days, but  
my understanding was that <> should be used for things that are in  
your include path (e.g. system includes and util libraries) while ""  
should be used for things that are more "local". Actually I think the  
semantic difference is that "" is supposed to look in the current dir  
first, while <> searches include dirs. I guess it could be argued  
either way there since the Tiki includes are being used from within  
it, and a design that would require you to use one or the other would  
suck anyway ;), but they still seem more like shared headers that  
just haven't been installed yet.

I'm ok with it either way really, considering how much I've been  
working on it lately :)