Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!hropus!ki4pv!codas!usfvax2!pdn!reggie
From: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ source file names
Message-ID: <1941@pdn.UUCP>
Date: 23 Dec 87 13:22:21 GMT
References: <593@inria.UUCP> <322@westmark.UUCP> <3880@uw-june.UUCP>
Reply-To: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation,   Largo FL
Lines: 29
Keywords: .C versus .c

In article <3880@uw-june.UUCP> pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) writes:

>How about .cc or .CC this is distinct from .c on even MS-DOS systems.

   The .cc extension may be taken by Concurrent C.  I'm not sure about this
due to the fact that I have only seen the paper by N.H. Gehani and W.D. Roome.
Also, keep in mind that a Concurrent C++ name extension must also be reserved
for future use if extensions are being given out at this time.


   Being C++ is an extension to C (and therefore so should be Concurrent C
and any merge of the two as well) any C program should be acceptable to CC.
I would imagine that any C program is acceptable by the Concurrent C compiler
and that in the future any C or C++ program should be acceptable to the
Concurrent C++ compiler.  *NOTE* this is all conjecture, being I have no
access to Concurrent C.


   So why do we need different extensions for C++, Concurrent C or any other
extension to C?  The only difficulty I would see is that the programmer
would be less inclined to run a C++ program through the C compiler.



-- 
George W. Leach					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-2826