Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!wang!bu-tyng!three!cory
From: cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: best extension for C++ course files
Message-ID: <468@three.mv.com>
Date: 10 Sep 90 01:04:48 GMT
References: <907@zinn.MV.COM>
Organization: EnigamI,  Nashua, NH.
Lines: 24

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