Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!lvc
From: lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ source file names
Message-ID: <3444@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 87 21:39:12 GMT
References: <593@inria.UUCP>
Organization: Ohio State Computer & Info Science
Lines: 26
Keywords: .C versus .c
Summary: please get rid of .c

In article <593@inria.UUCP>, shapiro@inria.UUCP (Marc Shapiro) writes:
> 
> There is a proposal (by the FSF people) to use the .C (capital C) extension
> to name C++ source files, instead of .c.  This should make a few things more
> efficient (e.g. choosing editor modes) and would allow to mix C and C++
> sources in a non-confusing way.
> 
> I think the idea is perfectly reasonable, if ATT adopts it.  The distributed
> CC could be prepared to accept either .c or .C in order not to break any
> exisiting programs, but future programs should only use the .C extension.
> 
> What do you think?

I think .c was a mistake.  It's confusing to programs like make, and
programmers too.

The suffix .C is fine.  My feeling about .cxx is that it is too long,
one character should suffice.  Though, if monocase causes problems
then .cxx is fine.

I also dislike the name CC; how many sites do you think have some
front-end script to /bin/cc in a program called /bin/CC? I know we did.

-- 
	Larry Cipriani AT&T Network Systems at
	cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!lvc Ohio State University