On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 15:22:20 -0500
Peter Foley
On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:05 PM Stefano Brivio
wrote: Hmm, "nice". I guess we should find out if it's reasonable / doable to "fix" all those.
I tried just doing clang-include-cleaner --edit, but it's unfortunately c++ centric, so it added a bunch of stuff like <cstdint> I can try manually fixing that up and seeing what happens.
By the way, I won't have a chance to try this before a couple of days, if needed, but another thought: if we end up adding/changing hundreds of include lines as a result, maybe the cleanup David mentioned would actually be in scope at that point, even from a mere perspective of "noise" we would add, or effort you're spending anyway (let's make it fully worth it I'd say). In any case we could keep a clean clang-include-cleaner output as second step. I think the priorities here should be 1. keep/make things working for everybody while 2. avoiding the risk of recurring fix-ups for future changes and 3. make things pretty/readable/elegant, exactly in this order. If we can tackle all of them together, great, otherwise we can take care of 1. first, and 2. and 3. later. -- Stefano