[boost] Re: Header files extention (overrides previous message)

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-05-30 12:55:14

[ Sorry about the last message, which was sent by accident. 
  You know, when Netscape is confused... ]

Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
> 
> Valentin Bonnard wrote:
> >
> > In my preferred editor (emacs), .h is reconized as a C
> > file, and colored as such. For a C++ file it gives
> > funny results. OTOH, .H is considered to be a C++ file.
> >
> > Of course it isn't crucial, but should we use .H headers
> > files ?

> NO!
> After all these years I am quite sure that the best portable extension
> is .hpp.
> Note that .h and .H are the same on OSs that are case-insensitive.

I know, but I don't just suggest overloading on case, that is, 
having foo.h and foo.H at the same time. And MacOS won't make 
the distinction between foo.h and foo.H, but will say foo.h if 
you told him foo.h and foo.H if you told him foo.H (that is,
the file name is kept as it is and its case is never changed).

> In addition, some PC products require .hpp.

Do they ? Which ones ?

> And, of course, we should NEVER use .h or no extension
> because you can't find and handle those files in operation systems.
> You might argue that this is their fault but as we need a portable extension
> anyway in pratice .hpp seems to be widely used and the best.

Fine. So it should be documented in the header policy 
(http://www.boost.org/header.htm).

[ BTW, emacs correctly reconizes .hpp as a C++ file. ]

-- 
Valentin Bonnard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications