The first rule will fail as soon as there are circular dependencies. So it cannot be applied strictly.
(This can still be made to work but this shifts a whole lot of work from the programmer to the consumer of these libraries which is obviously wrong.)
I'm all in favour of rule 2 (although it might be good to include “forward declaration headers” instead of the real deal, as in <iosfwd> because this reduces compile time). Generally, I believe it's a kind of self-documentation if a header file “declares” what dependencies it has – and what better way to do this than to include the required files?
EDIT:
In the comments, I've been challenged that circular dependencies between headers are a sign of bad design and should be avoided.
That's not correct. In fact, circular dependencies between classes may be unavoidable and aren't a sign of bad design at all. Examples are abundant, let me just mention the Observer pattern which has a circular reference between the observer and the subject.
To resolve the circularity between classes, you have to employ forward declaration because the order of declaration matters in C++. Now, it is completely acceptable to handle this forward declaration in a circular manner to reduce the number of overall files and to centralize code. Admittedly, the following case doesn't merit from this scenario because there's only a single forward declaration. However, I've worked on a library where this has been much more.
// observer.hpp
class Observer; // Forward declaration.
#ifndef MYLIB_OBSERVER_HPP
#define MYLIB_OBSERVER_HPP
#include "subject.hpp"
struct Observer {
virtual ~Observer() = 0;
virtual void Update(Subject* subject) = 0;
};
#endif
// subject.hpp
#include <list>
struct Subject; // Forward declaration.
#ifndef MYLIB_SUBJECT_HPP
#define MYLIB_SUBJECT_HPP
#include "observer.hpp"
struct Subject {
virtual ~Subject() = 0;
void Attach(Observer* observer);
void Detach(Observer* observer);
void Notify();
private:
std::list<Observer*> m_Observers;
};
#endif