mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) (09/03/90)
Actually, the problem is not with source files, but with _header_ files. It will be extremely awkward to share libraries if one vendor uses .h, another uses .hxx and another uses .hpp. Suppose we all agree to use .h -- what happens when someone standardizes on class String? Should it go into a file `string.h'? How does this work if we also support ANSI C library in this environment? -- Mike Vilot, ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH mjv@objects.mv.com (UUCP: ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)
cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) (09/10/90)
mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes: >Suppose we all agree to use .h -- what happens when someone standardizes >on class String? Should it go into a file `string.h'? How does this >work if we also support ANSI C library in this environment? I would love to see the endings for C++ files standardized... As near as I can tell, each compiler uses a different convention (yes, I can live with it, but it *IS* a nuisance). Using .h and .c as standard for C++ is probably not a good idea: C++ code is, in general, not compilable by C compilers. If C++ were to use the .h and .c convention, one would have to look in the file to determine which compiler to use (not to mention that it would make default ending "make" rules more ambiguous). I would much rather see agreement on .cc and .hh (my personal favs), but failing that, .cxx/.hxx, .cp/.hp, or any other similar system (not .C/.H or .CC/.HH -- would break Mac & DOS) used. +C -- Cory Kempf I do speak for the company (sometimes). The EnigamI Co. 603 883 2474 email: cory@three.mv.com, harvard!zinn!three!cory