Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!catfood
From: catfood@NCoast.ORG (Mark W. Schumann)
Subject: Re: File Name Extensions
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 17:42:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.174232.14194@NCoast.ORG>
References: <1991Jun27.204912.8609@javelin.sim.es.com> <786@taumet.com>
Lines: 26

In article <786@taumet.com> steve@taumet.com (Stephen Clamage) writes:
>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? 
>
>There is no consensus.  Some compilers use the extension to
>determine whether a file is a C or C++ file (if the compiler can
>compile both languages), some do not.  Some compilers accept a
>variety of extensions, some are restrictive.
>
>For C++ main (non-header) files, I have seen: .c .C .CC .c++ .cxx
>
>For C++ header files, I have seen: .h .hxx .h++
>
I like .cpp and .hpp.  Borland compilers like to see .cpp and don't
care what you use for your headers.

-- 
============================================================
Mark W. Schumann  3111 Mapledale Avenue, Cleveland 44109 USA
Domain: catfood@ncoast.org
UUCP:   ...!mailrus!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!catfood