Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tikal!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ source file names
Message-ID: <6590002@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Dec 87 18:13:12 GMT
References: <593@inria.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 25

I guess I would like to see the C++ community lobby in the direction
that C++ *IS* C, "today's" C, and that if you want absolute backwards 
compatibility to the slight differences to "old" dialects of C, then 
you invoke "today's" C compiler with a compile time option in order 
to make it backwardly compatible with the "old" dialects of C.

Using this arguement, the .c extension IS correct.

Given the choice of which language is going to become "today's" standard
dialect of C, either C++ or ANSI-C, I would certainly hope that C++
becomes the standard.

I think it would behoove the C++ community to try to move themselves 
and the C community at large in this direction.

In any case, the half dozen companies presently coming out with C++
compilers need to get together and hash out precisely what needs to
be done in this area.  Having each compiler that comes out expect
a different suffix has GOT to be the ultimate in WACKO-ism!

Let's get C++ standardized, and sell the rest of the world on its 
benefits, rather than fighting among ourselves on little "don't-care"
details !!!

- Jim Adcock HP LSID -