Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!ncar!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!att!westmark!mole-end!mat
From: mat@mole-end.UUCP (Mark A Terribile)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: extern "language" (was: C --> C++)
Summary: Can we standardize on a non-standard?
Message-ID: <187@mole-end.UUCP>
Date: 12 May 89 07:50:46 GMT
References: <2857@pegasus.ATT.COM> <2858@pegasus.ATT.COM> <674@maxim.erbe.se>
Distribution: comp
Organization: mole-end--private system.  admin: mole-end!newtnews
Lines: 18

-----... how about a standard suffix for C++ source code? ... 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++"?
--- ... Of course, I have no idea whether or not the fascist MS-DOS
--- file system will allow "+" signs in filenames
 
- Neither DOS nor VMS allows "+" characters in file names, so why not do like
- Zortech, Oregon s/w and some other company whose name I forgot and use .cpp?

It seems to me that this whole matter is so inherently system dependent
that it doesn't belong in the language specification.

						Mark T.
-- 

(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end				Mark Terribile