[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: C++ file extensions (was Re: qt-copy updated)
From:       Martijn Klingens <mklingens () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2001-09-01 20:07:42
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 01 September 2001 21:14, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 03:25:58PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Name one C++ compiler, which understands only one of .cpp or .cc.  The
> > "argument" about portability of .cpp and .cc is non-sense.  A different
> > matter it is for .c and .C with filesystems broken by design, but as
> > said, that's a different matter.
>
> Well... MSVC++ doesn't grok .cc, but if you setup nmake you can use it
> that way.  You just loose syntax hilighting and any other benefits of an
> IDE.

Mostly not the compilers are broken, but rather the make logic and/or the GUI 
around it. I am quite sure Borland C++ Builder doesn't make .cc files show up 
in the 'add file to project' (the standard Windows "file open") dialog...

And indeed... syntax highlight is gone in _any_ compiler on Windows with the 
exeception of ports from Unix (gvim for example).

Also, there will not be a file association for .cc in the file manager either.

All in all those were the reasons for me calling it "non-portable"...

(I BTW agree with Malte and Michael that it might be a bit too much to turn 
CVS upside down, I didn't realize the amount of changes involved... Maybe we 
should leave it with the conclusion that .cpp is better, but .cc should not 
be changed and only _new_ files should have .coo extensions - or even retain 
the current status quo, though I still feel that standardization would be a 
great thing to have)

Martijn, not even knowing what his own opinion is here...

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]