Re: <version.h> versus "version.h"

[John W. Eaton]

On 05/03/2017 01:01 PM, Rik wrote:
> jwe,
>
> I notice that we have some inconsistency in the #include style for
> version.h and defaults.h.  If this is intentional, fine, but a comment
> should be added.  Otherwise, I would use "version.h" to indicate the file
> is a local include.

I think the use of <> for generated files like version.h and defaults.h 
was an attempt to avoid picking up old versions of these files in the 
source tree when doing a VPATH build in a separate directory.  Something 
like that could happen if they were generated in the source tree by 
mistake or were left over from a previous build in the source tree.  But 
I don't think we should worry about that problem.  If someone configures 
and builds in the source tree and then tries to switch to a VPATH build 
in a separate directory without cleaning up everything then this will 
probably not be the only problem they encounter.

I checked in the following changeset:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/5da300c55e89

jwe