Re: ext/ names (was: re:[PATCH] HP/SGI extensions to...)

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>]

"jon [tm]" wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 01:22:46AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> > Currently, every modern (not the backward, deprecated ones) header file meant to
> > be included by the user does *not* have any extension: indeed, when I started my
> > task, I found in the ext directory slist, hash_map, hash_set, rope. I think,
> > naively perhaps, that when you learn C++, you learn that C++ header files do not
> > have a .h extension. You learn that, even if you unfortunately don't have any
> > first hand information on the actual meetings of the standard commitee. As time
> > passes, you ends up finding such naming scheme much more elegant. This is of
> > course only my humble, personal, point of view.
>
> >From a lowly user's point of view, I prefer suffixed headers, if only
> because a number of editors I use won't automatically do syntax
> highlighting on a file without a suffix, so if I open up ext/memory to
> see what extensions are available, or check the prototype for a function
> (usually quicker than referring to the docs if it's just a check) then my
> editor won't highlight it.

I see your point.
However, this is what comes to my mind on the spot:
1- Almost any feature-rich editor allows the user to choose any highlithing for any
file type. For instance, I often use 'nedit' (a custom version of it comes also with
Irix) and you have just to go to preferences->language_mode and voilą!
2- The new ext files are not that long and complex, overall. I think the available
classes and methods are quite easy to grasp, even without highligthning.
3- We can work with Phil on improving the docs!

Cheers,
Paolo.