Paul Eggert wrote:
> I prefer "#if HAVE_FOO", as it's easier to read, and I'd rather not
> convert everything in sight to "#ifdef HAVE_FOO".
Likewise for me. There are cases when a HAVE_FOO macro needs to be
defined to 0 in the negative case (for example, if we want to use it
as an expression insi
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Bruno Haible wrote on Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:07:05PM CEST:
>> - #if HAVE_... instead of #ifdef HAVE_...
>
> Autoconf is currently moving away from this, see this thread:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2006-08/msg00056.html
>
> While I
Hello Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 02:07:05PM CEST:
> Since the purpose of is to show best practices, here are a few of them.
> - #if HAVE_... instead of #ifdef HAVE_...
Autoconf is currently moving away from this, see this thread:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autocon
Since the purpose of is to show best practices, here are a few of them.
- The double-inclusion guard in system.h is incomplete.
- A comment refers to and as being "ANSI C89 headers",
which is wrong. These are POSIX.
- Declaration of variables as 'const' where possible. Improves the legibility
