Bidi B patch

[Alexandre Julliard]

Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel at shemesh.biz> writes:

> I can see why you say that, but I feel it narrows the discussion down
> to technical (will or will not compile) consideration only. I think
> that we also need to show commitment to separating inner from
> exported, and this, to me, means the source too.

I don't think it's a useful distinction to make in the source; IMO the
current situation is just as useful, since it lets you distinguish
between system headers and Wine headers. In a Winelib app, it makes
sense to use <>, since a #include <winbase.h> and a #include <stdio.h>
mean the same thing, they both include system headers from
/usr/include. In the Wine source it's very different, a #include
<winbase.h> will *not* include the system header from /usr/include, it
will include the local header from the current source tree. That's an
important distinction too, and one that we would lose by changing all
includes to <>.

Both options make sense, and they both convey (different) useful
information, so you can't say one is better than the other. And it
doesn't make sense to change all the source files if the end result is
not a clear improvement, which it isn't in that case.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com