From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-11 08:45:59
larsbj_at_[hidden] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
> "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Is there a good reason that the config library needs to use a
>>> "creative" choice of file extensions rather than the boost standard
>>> of ".*pp"?
> | Well they're not really complete .cpp files,
What makes something a "complete .cpp file?"
> and they're not headers as such
> | either - more like snippets of code that get #included by various other
> | files (the .cpp ones, and the configure script), so I wanted something
> | distinctive to separate them from regular source and header files.
> Then perhaps using some extension that is not a common C++ extension
> would be better?
Err. The whole point of using ".hpp" was so that we could quickly
search through all the C++ source files with a simple filename
globbing pattern. This is one of the first conventions we
established, at Nico's wise insistence. At least use ".ipp", please!
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk