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

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr@codesourcery.com
Fri Jan 4 12:34:00 GMT 2002

Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:

| On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 04:13:34PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "jon [tm]" <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> writes:
| > 
| > | 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.
| > 
| > Then, what you need is not a suffxed file but a documentation of the
| > available features.  
| > 
| > Looking into the implementations isn't something we promote, and I
| > don't think we should do so.
| *Self-deception alert!*
| Reading the source is something we *do* promote, because it encourages 
| participation.  (What we don't promote is depending on nonportable
| features found there.)

I guess I didn't make myself clear :-(

Jon said he often uses the implementations as documentations, thereby
with the danger of relying on nonportable constructs without knowing it,
my point was that in that specific configuration he is doing something
we don't promote.  By judging from your parenthetical remark, I guess
we're on the same page on that topic then.  Good.

It is my opinion that if someone is going to look into the
implementations for something we do promote, non-automatic syntax
highlighting (because of extensionless filename) isn't something which
will stop him. 

I don't want to make a big deal of the issue because I don't think it
is really an issue.  I appreciated your very detailed description of
when and how the Make problem you mentionned can occur.  However, I
think you'll agree with me that those routes no longer (ever?) cross the
path we take to build the library.  

On the other hand, I consider that consistency is far more important
than syntax-highlighting.  That is just my opinion, you may disagree
but then I don't think that should ring a self-deception alert bell...
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                       http://www.codesourcery.com

More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list