Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!SanDiego.NCR.COM!tortuga!jim
From: jim@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim (James) Ruehlin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: File Name Extensions
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.174614.15645@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 28 Jun 91 17:46:14 GMT
References: <1991Jun27.204912.8609@javelin.sim.es.com>
Sender: news@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM (News Owner)
Reply-To: jim@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim (James) Ruehlin)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Lines: 22

In article <1991Jun27.204912.8609@javelin.sim.es.com> cberrett@tau.sim.es.com (Craig Berrett) writes:
>
>There seems to be a variety of  different file extensions used to
>indicate that a
>file is a c++ source or header file .  At this time is there any
>consensus as to the
>naming convention that should be used? What is currently in use for
>these c++
>file extensions? 

In my experience, there's no consensus.  I used to use Glockenspeil and
the CommonVu libraries for MS 3.0).  These wanted .cxx and .hxx extension.
Later I moved to Borland C++ 2.0, which likes .cpp but has an option
that will take anything.  I share some code with people developing on
Unix, and they use .c and .h .   

For my own purposes I use .c and .h to make me compatible with the Unix
people.  Some of my include files are also .hxx  .     I'd like to
see some standard like .cpp and .hpp for C++, leaving .c and .h to
C so we can always tell the difference.

- Jim Ruehlin