Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at