[SDL] Where is SDL.h located in OS X Distro ?

[Hollis Blanchard]

On Apr 12, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Neil Bradley wrote:

>> This is ugly and horrible, of course, adding to the collection of 
>> trash
>> that tends to accumulate on compile commandlines.  The correct way to 
>> do
>> it is as you say: #include <SDL/SDL.h>
>
> I think you mean:
>
> #include "SDL/SDL.h"
>
> <> Means use the default include paths (e.g. -I), "" is explicit and
> ignores them.

You totally lost me there. The *default* include paths are what's there 
without any -I arguments. Also, "" does not ignore anything; it just 
looks in the current directory before the -I directories (and system 
directories). The *only* difference is that "" looks in cwd first. I 
hardly see one being "more explicit" than the other. I also don't see 
what value "SDL/SDL.h" has unless you plan on having the SDL include 
directory in your cwd and you want to use that without any -I arguments 
(a bit contrived IMHO).

> I expressly forbid usage of <> in all of my professional
> projects and default include paths unless it's to reference a system
> library. It prevents accidentally picking up a stray .h (yes, it 
> happens)
> and you know exactly what file you're including.

-I dir
	Add the directory dir to the list of directories to be searched for 
header files. 	Directories named by -I are searched before the standard 
system include directories.

So even if you have foo/bar.h, /usr/include/bar.h, and -Ifoo in CFLAGS, 
you won't pick up /usr/include/bar.h. I guess you're talking about the 
accidental case where you don't have -Ifoo in CFLAGS, and that's fine, 
but I still don't see how "SDL/SDL.h" is better than <SDL/SDL.h>.

Luckily for you, Apple's gcc/g++ can handle "SDL/SDL.h" in addition to 
<SDL/SDL.h>, but I remain baffled by your reasoning. :)

-Hollis