Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!grace.cs.washington.edu!jeffb
From: jeffb@grace.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Bowden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: extern "language" (was: C --> C++)
Message-ID: <JEFFB.89May8141340@grace.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 8 May 89 21:13:40 GMT
References: <2857@pegasus.ATT.COM> <2858@pegasus.ATT.COM> <1969@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <1950@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 13
In-reply-to: keffer@blake.acs.washington.edu's message of 8 May 89 20:22:35 GMT

In article <1950@blake.acs.washington.edu> keffer@blake.acs.washington.edu (Thomas Keffer) writes:

>While we're at it, how about a standard suffix for C++ source code?  I
<propose ".cxx" (as used by Oasys).  Anything but CC's ".C" which cannot
>be distinguised from ".c" on MS-DOS machines.

Why not go all the way and use ".c++" or ".C++" ?  Seems like this would
be most clear.  Of course, I have no idea whether or not the fascist MS-DOS
file system will allow "+" signs in filenames (but then again, I don't
care).   Personally I just use the ".c" extension and let my Makefile take
care of the details (can you say "CC=g++"?)
--
``Say `lah vee.'''