Re: In the Works: New OOo C++ Coding Standards

Hi Thorsten,

On Monday 18 December 2006 11:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

> > Aah. Let me rephrase. Are -you- really sure the external include guard
> > optimization provides enough benefit on all the compilers we are using
> > to make it worthwhile to degrade readability by adding noise? Ie. is
> > this a modest gain in machine time compared to a perhaps much costlier
> > loss of human time? Can you provide some numbers to support this
> > optimization or should we perhaps be conservative and not use it? ;-)
>
> ok, seems we've deadlocked here. ;-)
>
> Point is, the vast majority of the code uses that idiom as of today,
> and I'm reluctant to advice people of the contrary (as long as there
> are build time degradations on at least one prominent platform, at
> least when building on a network volume). Rather sooner than later,
> all used compilers will perform this optimization by themselves, and
> I'd say let's add the rule then. I'm relatively indifferent about
> this, though - if people think it's ok to start removing external
> header guards right now (because it will take years to clean them up
> anyway), I'd be fine with that, too.

I hate them that much that I am willing to do a script that would do the 
removal ;-)

What is the platform/compiler that probably needs this, please?  Any volunteer 
to do a comparison of the "with" and "without" compilation times?

Regards,
Jan