[bind10-dev] coding guidelines

[Francis Dupont]

> > => you can assume but you can't prove... this is my point.
> 
> I still don't get it.  In theory, we can't prove that because it may
> be implementation defined.

=> not only: the problem is the < > fallback rule. If an error makes
a header file not available "locally" but available in an include
path (i.e., " " vs < >) then there is no direct (e.g., a warning
or better raised) way to detect it.

> we can prove dir1/foo.h is used.

=> no, there is no proof because if dir1/foo.h doesn't exist and
dir2/foo.h does, then both "foo.h" and <foo.h> returns dir2/foo.h.

> Do you simply mean we can't prove it in theory?

=> the logic is a formal science so "prove in theory" is a pleonasm

> Or do you mean we can't prove that even in practice

=> I was not clear enough: for me a proof means a formal proof.
On this side " " doesn't bring something. I don't mean we should not
use it, so it is a bit disappointing and we can't rely on it by
itself.

Regards

Francis Dupont <fdupont at isc.org>