From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-24 11:49:26
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Oh, I see. You are calling these ".ipp" files "inlined," but they
>> really have only non-inline functions and are not #included in any
>> header files the way, IME, .ipp files normally are (to separate
>> template implementations from their declarations).
> Theses are the files that contain an offline implementation, but reside
> amoung header files. *.cpp files and inlined component (like minimal.hpp)
> include these.
Oh, now I feel stupid. Of course they are used in the traditional way
>> No, I think I was just confused by the extensions on these files.
>> Sorry about that. You might want to consider whether there's a better
>> way to name them.
> I thought you were promoting to limit number of used extensions?
I am. There are only 2 other choices that don't expand it ;-)
And I was only asking you to _consider_ whether a change is
appropriate. I probably should just quit while I'm behind, though :)
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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