🚀 go-pugleaf

:From article <6928@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>, by ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny):
> 
> As a result of problems similar to the one described above, it seems that
> programmers should always use the #include <filename> form unless they
> have a specific, well defined situation in which the behavior of the
> #include "filename" form is clearly desired.  The #include "filename" form

I have never thought of "filename" as meaning "an include file in the
current directory".  My usage has been to use <file> when the file is
a Unix supplied header file and to use "file" otherwise.  This gives
future programmers a clue as to where to look for the header file.  Now,
you may have package supplied header files in /usr/include on your system--
that's fine and "file" will still find it but not all systems will have
package-defined header files in /usr/include.  Also, if a future programmer
is porting some code and cpp can't find <file>, then the programmer knows
that the system is lacking a certain header file and that he/she better
get his/her hands on one, instead of wondering why the code came incomplete.
-- 
Michael Sullivan          uunet!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan
aQdata, Inc.              sullivan@aqdata.uucp
San Dimas, CA             +1 714 599 9992