Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!wuarchive!uunet!apctrc!zmls04 From: zmls04@trc.amoco.com (Martin L. Smith) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: best extension for C++ files Message-ID: Date: 12 Sep 90 14:11:04 GMT References: <907@zinn.MV.COM> <1845@cs.rit.edu> <3358@stl.stc.co.uk> <1990Sep08.094000.10269@virtech.uucp> <144@tdatirv.UUCP> <451@taumet.com> Sender: news@trc.amoco.com Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research Center Lines: 31 In-reply-to: steve@taumet.com's message of 11 Sep 90 15:41:23 GMT In article <451@taumet.com> steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) writes: If you include a build line for each file (or for each file of either C or C++ at minimum), it doesn't matter that the file endings are the same. This is not as onerous as it sounds, since I find for projects of any size, the set of header-file dependencies for different source files is different, and thus requires at least a dependency line for most files. We use an automatic include-file dependency generator (stolen, I think, from cake) to scan C source and build a set of dependency-lines which are d in the makefile. This scheme has the nice feature that (except we've sort-of broken the generator) it finds dependencies on system-wide *.h files as well as local ones. The latter dependencies become important if non-local *.h files <> change. Anyhow, I want to vote against language-independent suffices. The price is the loss of (to me) too many useful aids (compiler selection, all of the above jazz about include files, etc) which save me from 1 lots of typing about how to compile whom depending on what and 2 manually generated makefile text that too easily becomes obsolete and requires maintenance. -- Martin L. Smith Amoco Research Center P.O. Box 3385 zmls04@trc.amoco.com Tulsa, OK 74102 [zmls04@sc.msc.umn.edu] 918-660-4065