Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Felix E. Klee (felix.klee.jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-17 17:26:30

On Friday 17 January 2003 10:03 pm, Jürgen Hunold wrote:
> I would like .h as default extension.
> Rationale:
> I've do a short find | grep | wc for Q_OBJECT in .h files on my local
> sandboxes. I found 1528 header files which needs moc'ing.
> All headers CVS-Controlled. (Some .ui generated, but still...)
> And believe, it is no fun to "simply" rename files in CVS. Ask the
> boost-CVS maintainers or the list archive for examples. The worst I
> remember was renaming is_POD.hpp to is_pod.hpp.
> Please consider that many possible users have a running setup (qmake,
> old tmake, even handcraftet Makefiles, MSVC-Projects using the
> Qt-Visual Studio binding, ...) All these depend on .ui -> .h ->
> moc_.cpp Depencies.
> > > For me, this is just inacceptable.
> Just to be sure: The .hpp approach is acceptable if you start fresh. I
> my (and many other cases) you have so much legacy code lying around
> which simply need the prefix .h .
> Naturally, the extension should be made to be customised.
> But Qt uses .h everywhere, so it seems best, not to change this...

If customizing the extension is made easy then it shouldn't be a problem to
change it from ".hpp" to ".h". I just think that a ".hpp" extension as a
default would be more consistent with the rest of Boost and projects that use
similar naming conventions. But, that's really a minor issue and I'll be
happy with whatever default will be chosen.

> > > And we're using doxygen to generate docs out of _every_ header.
> >
> > Did you again misread my original text or are there indeed features
> > in Jam that support Doxygen? If so, where can I find more
> > documentation?
> Oh sorry, this is a clear misunderstanding. I was focused on the moc
> issue. We're just using doxygen with the standard doxygen configuration
> file. I would be glad if someone could improve this, because generating
> docs by "grab all and run...." is not the best thing to do...

As I hope is clear now, I was just using Doxygen as an example for another
tool besides moc that extracts information from header files and source
files. If moc is viewed in the spirit of Doxygen then it really doesn't make
sense to give header files to be moc'ed a different extension.


To contact me personally don't reply but send email to 
felix DOT klee AT inka DOT de

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at