Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

I've reviewed questions How to use include directive correctly and C++ #include semantics and neither addresses this - nor do the others suggested by SO when I typed the title... What, if any, are the benefits of writing: #include "../include/someheader.h" #include "../otherdir/another.h" compared with using just a plain file name: #include "someheader.h" #include "another.h" or perhaps a relative name without the ' .. ': #include "include/someheader.h" #include "otherdir/another.h" The problems I see are: You can't move a header without worrying about which source files include it. You can end up with very long paths for headers in dependencies and error reports. I had one today with " ../dir1/include/../../include/../dir2/../include/header.h ". The only merit I can see is that while you do not need to move files around, you might be able to get away without always using ' -I ' directives to find headers, but the loss of flexibility, and the complexity of compiling in sub-sub-directories, etc seems to outweigh the benefit. So, am I overlooking a benefit? Thanks for the inputs. I think the consensus is that there aren't any major benefits to the notation using ".." that I'm overlooking. In general terms, I like the "somewhere/header.h" notation; I do use it in new projects. The one I'm working on is anything but new. One of the problems is that there are various sets of headers, often with a prefix such as rspqr.h , rsabc.h , rsdef.h , rsxyz.h . These are all related to code in the rsmp directory, but some of the headers

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel