lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (05/16/88)
The .cc suffix has been used for Concurrent C compilers for *quite some time*. "make" will still get confused between C++ and Concurrent C. Is this really a big deal though? This sure would be easier if C++ was called D!. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems and Ohio State University Domain: lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Path: ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!lvc (weird but right)
mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) (05/25/88)
In article <13369@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes: >The .cc suffix has been used for Concurrent C compilers for >*quite some time*. "make" will still get confused between >C++ and Concurrent C. Is this really a big deal though? > >This sure would be easier if C++ was called D!. We just use .cxx and .hxx, which is the Glockenspiel standard. The "x's" are just little pluses turned 45 degrees :-).
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (05/26/88)
in article <6041@well.UUCP>, mitsu@well.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) says: > Summary: ... > We just use .cxx and .hxx, which is the Glockenspiel standard. The > "x's" are just little pluses turned 45 degrees :-). I could live with the x's. Dave J.
ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (05/27/88)
> We just use .cxx and .hxx, which is the Glockenspiel standard. The > "x's" are just little pluses turned 45 degrees :-). Okay, I'll bite: why not just ".c++" and ".h++"? -- ado@ncifcrf.gov ADO is a trademark of Ampex.
robert@pvab.UUCP (06/02/88)
> > We just use .cxx and .hxx, which is the Glockenspiel standard. The > > "x's" are just little pluses turned 45 degrees :-). > > Okay, I'll bite: why not just ".c++" and ".h++"? Because some (most?) operating systems except for UNIX will not let you use anything but alpha-numeric ones. And most are case-insensitive, too.
bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/13/88)
In article <240@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: >> Okay, I'll bite: why not just ".c++" and ".h++"? > >Because some (most?) operating systems except for UNIX will not let >you use anything but alpha-numeric ones. And most are case-insensitive, >too. Uh, some OSes don't let you use periods, either, you know. Why would one want to try to standardize an OS thing in the language? I can see standardizing the fact that certain options will be available and will do certain things, but you really want to pin down the *exact syntax* for *all* OSes? Maybe we should just pick the few (Unix, DOS, ...) we really care about and maybe offer guidelines for others. -bc -- Bill Crews bc@halley.UUCP (512) 244-8350 ..!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bc
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (06/20/88)
In article <373@halley.UUCP>, bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) writes: > In article <240@pvab.UUCP> robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) writes: > >Because some (most?) operating systems except for UNIX will not let > >you use anything but alpha-numeric ones. And most are case-insensitive, > >too. > Uh, some OSes don't let you use periods, either, you know. > ... Maybe we should > just pick the few (Unix, DOS, ...) we really care about and maybe offer > guidelines for others. What about UNIX, PC-DOS, VMS (, OS/2?)?
nusip@maccs.UUCP (Mike Borza) (06/26/88)
> >Uh, some OSes don't let you use periods, either, you know. Why would one want >to try to standardize an OS thing in the language? I can see standardizing the >fact that certain options will be available and will do certain things, but you >really want to pin down the *exact syntax* for *all* OSes? > It's pretty reasonable, I think, to try to standardize this. One of the most annoying things about maintaining source across multiple environments is dealing with file naming conventions for include files and the like. If it can be standardized in the language, the compiler writers can solve it once. It still leaves open the problem of filenames when opening files for other purposes, but at least it eliminates one source of problems. --mike borza.