In article <199410080341.UAA02197@netcom13.netcom.com> jconklin@netcom.com (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>>  "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>>  
>>  > This patch is bogus.  If you're going to include things from sys/,
>>  > it's *your* problem to insure that any files they depend on are   
>>  > included.  Adding includes like this is a slippery path to Hell.
>
>In general, I agree with this.
>
>Most of the interfaces defined by <sys/*.h> aren't new, and are either 
>described by various standards (POSIX.1, XPG3, SVID, etc) or by common
>usage and manpages.  For example, you can't just include <sys/stat.h>
>and expect it to work --- you know that <sys/types.h> must be included
>first.
>

But who decides which files are protected against multiple inclusion?
It looks like some of them are and some of them are not. Could we
just protect all of them [except assert.h]?

christos