Re: [Cppunit-devel] Duplicated #includes

[Steve M. R. <ste...@vi...>]

Hello,

Sorry for being so dense this morning, but: do the duplicated includes
cause any trouble?


On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Summerwill, Bob wrote:
> Baptiste wrote ...
> 
> >> Shoudln't that <string> only be included if you don't have 
> >> CPPUNIT_HAVE_SSTREAM anyway ?
> 
> I'm not sure.  Presumably it's there so that the inline implementation
> of OStringStream::str() can construct the msg local variable, in which
> case you are probably correct.

Yeah, you're right, it could be protected.
 
> >> Wouldn't it be better to move the declaration of OStringStream in
> >> its one header (include/cppunit/portability, include/cppunit/tools ?),
> >> and includes it only where it is used ?

The whole reason for "Portability" is so that you can just
#include it, and then assume a whole bunch of things.  Like
class OStringStream is defined.  I would argue that including
<string> unconditionally in "Portability.h" is also a good thing.

It is true that at present, OStringStream is only used in a couple
of the CppUnit sources.  However, users that define their own
assertion_traits (i.e. ME!) also use OStringStream.  It is convenient
to include a single CppUnit header and have everything I need
defined.

As I said above: I don't understand the concern over a few extra
includes.

-Steve

-- 
by Rocket to the Moon,
by Airplane to the Rocket,
by Taxi to the Airport,
by Frontdoor to the Taxi,
by throwing back the blanket and laying down the legs ...
- They Might Be Giants