Extensionless headers

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:

| On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 09:56:45PM +0000, Nathan Myers wrote:
| > The committee's political hackery certainly didn't touch on why they are
| > needed.  (Anyway the discussion at the time assumed that the actual
| > filenames would continue to be extended; the canonical comment was
| > that "they are header names, not files; it's the implementation's job
| > to provide a set of declarations when it sees include <foo>, and it's
| > none of our business how".)
| 
| Here's a simple proposal to make everyone happy:
| 
| 1)  Leave the standard headers where they are (in std not bits), and rename
|     them in place from foo to std_foo.h.  Essentially moving std_foo.h
|     from bits to std, just spread out over a couple of days.
| 
| 2)  Change include/Makefile.am to that when the staging headers are created,
|     they are done with standard names:
| 
|        include/foo  ->  ...../include/std/std_foo.h


What type of problems is that supposed to solve? I've heard of syntax
highlighting, that argument isn't one since .h files are interpreted
as C header files, not C++ one.  Find? if all standard headers follow
the same policy, that doesn't make any difference whether they are
extensionless or not.  

Since this list has seen unnecessary inflammatory rhetorics on that
issue, I would like to see at least one compelling reason justifying
those inflammatory rhetorics.

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                       http://www.codesourcery.com