Re: #pragma once

2017-08-01 Thread Bryan Call
I am +1 on using pragma once for ease of use. The change should be one large PR that changes all the files. However, there is no performance gain on compilation. Modern compilers are already optimized for include guards. -Bryan > On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Jason Kenny wrote: > > I want

Re: #pragma once

2017-08-01 Thread Bryan Call
I am +1 on using pragma once for ease of use. However, there is no performance gain on compilation. Modern compilers are already optimized for include guards. -Bryan > On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Jason Kenny wrote: > > I want to bump this again. I started moving to this already. However J

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Jason Kenny
Seriously... I am fine with one big PR, but it will be big. (adding one line, removing 3 for each header) I think it is easier to do smaller batches Jason On Monday, July 31, 2017, 3:19:33 PM CDT, Jason Kenny wrote: So we should make a massive PR to fix all headers? This is not some ploy to say

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Jason Kenny
So we should make a massive PR to fix all headers? This is not some ploy to say you got rid of the more lines of code. :-) Jason On Monday, July 31, 2017, 2:09:54 PM CDT, Phil Sorber wrote: I agree with James, we should have one PR that does all this and then we maintain going forward. I was try

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Phil Sorber
I agree with James, we should have one PR that does all this and then we maintain going forward. I was trying to see if clang-tidy had anything that supports this but I could not find it. On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:08 PM Jason Kenny wrote: > I don't see the need for making more complex configure

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Jason Kenny
I don't see the need for making more complex configure checks... this is a supported feature of all compilers that supports C++11.  Jason On Monday, July 31, 2017, 11:17:37 AM CDT, James Peach wrote: > On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Alan Carroll > wrote: > > I'll put in for allowing #pragma o

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread James Peach
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Alan Carroll > wrote: > > I'll put in for allowing #pragma once. AFAIK it's supported by all the > compilers we support and is reasonably standard usage. I have read up on the > problems that can arise and IMHO those are better dealt with by cleaning up > the i

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Alan Carroll
I'll put in for allowing #pragma once. AFAIK it's supported by all the compilers we support and is reasonably standard usage. I have read up on the problems that can arise and IMHO those are better dealt with by cleaning up the includes and source structure rather than depending on being saved b

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-31 Thread Jason Kenny
I want to bump this again. I started moving to this already. However James Peach was wanting to talk about this in dev for a different code review by someone else. I personally took the lack of discussion here a sign this was obvious ok, and a good thing to do as it is generally standard practic

Re: #pragma once

2017-07-08 Thread John Rushford
+1, Thanks Jason > On Jul 7, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Jason Kenny wrote: > > Hi all, > I would suggest we start using > #pragma once > instead of the classic header guard of > #ifndef MYHEADER_H > #define MYHEADER_H > ...#endif //MYHEADER_H > The reason for this is that #pragma once: > 1) is suppor