bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (04/22/88)
Has anyone compiled a list of the differences (incompatibilities?)
between AT&T C++ and GNU C++?
I know there are some programs which will compile under one and not the
other. It would be nice to be able to write portable C++ which would
compile under either.
If anyone has such a list, please mail or post it.
If there is no such list, I will volunteer to compile it from
contributions from all and sundry.
(As long as I'm here, I'd like to flame AT&T for using .c as the source
code file extension. What a stupid idea. Now you can't tell a C
source file from a C++ source file just by looking at the filename.
And you can't tell make(1) to make a program containing C and C++. And
each Makefile has to have a .c.o rule to override the default one. Hey
AT&T! Why don't you take a tip from GNU and use .cc?)
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@acornrc.uucp
UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | apple }!acornrc!bob
Arpanet: bob%acornrc.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.govbright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (04/23/88)
In article <724@acornrc.UUCP> bob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) writes: >(As long as I'm here, I'd like to flame AT&T for using .c as the source >code file extension. What a stupid idea. Now you can't tell a C >source file from a C++ source file just by looking at the filename. >And you can't tell make(1) to make a program containing C and C++. And >each Makefile has to have a .c.o rule to override the default one. Hey >AT&T! Why don't you take a tip from GNU and use .cc?) The C++ world is developing a problem with C++ source file extensions. So far, I have seen: .C ?? AT&T .c .h Guideleines .cc ?? Gnu .cxx .hxx Advantage .cpp .hpp Zortech Argh! OK, here are the ground rules I propose: 1. The extension shouldn't be the same as for C, so compilers and make can tell the difference. 2. The extension shouldn't depend on case sensitivity, so it will work with case insensitive operating systems like VMS and OS/2 and MS-DOS. 3. The extension should be <= 3 chars, for operating system portability.