[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Multiple inclusion guards in headers

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Aug 17 19:39:42 CEST 2008

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:29:27PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> > This is the second issue id like to see clarified
> >
> > Do we require headers that do not need multiple inclusion guards out of
> > technical reasons to have multiple inclusion guards?
> > technical here is speed, compiler warnings or errors, or spec compliance
> > My vote is of course, no, as it makes the headers bigger and thus means
> > more to read aka worse readability.
> That's the most ridiculous argument I've heard in a while, especially
> from someone capable of reading and comprehending Intel SSE code.
> Do you have any TECHNICAL arguments for skipping those two lines?

they waste time writing and waste time reading
we also do not add

// This is the end of the file

for the very same reason


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080817/a9632fe5/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list