looking at Christian's commit, I'm wondering whether we should have some conventions regarding the ordering of includes.
Right now, it's rather chaotic. At least we're not mixing standard includes (stdint.h) with our own (kernel.h).
I propose having standard includes first, then a new line, then our system includes, then the app/lib specific stuff. Blocks seperated by an empty line. Ordered alphabetically, as any other ordering is totally arbitrary.
Comments? Do you think this is "overconventioning"?
looking at Christian's commit, I'm wondering whether we should have
some conventions regarding the ordering of includes.
Right now, it's rather chaotic. At least we're not mixing standard
includes (stdint.h) with our own (kernel.h).
I propose having standard includes first, then a new line, then our
system includes, then the app/lib specific stuff. Blocks seperated by
an empty line. Ordered alphabetically, as any other ordering is
totally arbitrary.
in general: +1
However, I would not insist on alphabetical ordering, because in some cases
the ordering does matter.
Additional, I would suggest to use angle brackets only for standard libc
includes (e.g. <stdio.h> or <inttypes.h>), and use quotes for RIOT's own
headers (e.g. "msg.h" or "sixlowpan/mac.h").
Comments? Do you think this is "overconventioning"?
It might be a bit too much, but I think it's necessary if we want our code to
look neat and understandable.
looking at Christian's commit, I'm wondering whether we should have
some conventions regarding the ordering of includes.
Right now, it's rather chaotic. At least we're not mixing standard
includes (stdint.h) with our own (kernel.h).
I propose having standard includes first, then a new line, then our
system includes, then the app/lib specific stuff. Blocks seperated by
an empty line. Ordered alphabetically, as any other ordering is
totally arbitrary.
in general: +1
However, I would not insist on alphabetical ordering, because in some cases
the ordering does matter.
+1
Additional, I would suggest to use angle brackets only for standard libc
includes (e.g. <stdio.h> or <inttypes.h>), and use quotes for RIOT's own
headers (e.g. "msg.h" or "sixlowpan/mac.h").
I thought this was already part of our coding conventions?
Comments? Do you think this is "overconventioning"?
It might be a bit too much, but I think it's necessary if we want our code to
look neat and understandable.
>Additional, I would suggest to use angle brackets only for standard libc
>includes (e.g. <stdio.h> or <inttypes.h>), and use quotes for RIOT's own
>headers (e.g. "msg.h" or "sixlowpan/mac.h").
I thought this was already part of our coding conventions?