On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a
> > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be
> > quite crazy.  For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2",
> > ".c-3", etc., it would get ugly fast.
> Which is why programs that use any major C feature introduced since
> 1980 use the extension '.cc' or '.cpp'.

Except any program using .cc or .cpp for code is liable to break on
gcc, as they are C++ file extensions, and to the best of my (admittedly
limited knowledge) C and C++ are distinct languages...

So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for
misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager to
rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager from a
malicious ebuild masquerading under the wrong EAPI? Relying on the file
name for information is the kind of design decision we laugh at in
Windows, so why adopt it here?
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Reply via email to