The ship may have sailed on giving feedback on this name too ;-) Personally, I just think "cxx" is cooler that "cpp". Add that to being more correct, and it's a winner for me as an extension for C++.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Jameson <vtjn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Cpp sounds fine to me. That's the only file extension accepted by gnu make > (even the expected tool name is CXX): > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Catalogue-of-Rules.html#Catalogue-of-Rules > > I think ship sailed a long time ago for cpp being an unambiguous > abbreviation for the c-preprecessor over C++. > > just my 2ยข > > > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 7:38:05 AM UTC-4, Bart Janssens wrote: >> >> I like the sound of CxxWrap.jl. I was reluctant to use Cxx, to avoid >> giving the impression there is a dependency on Cxx.jl, but in the future I >> may actually use Cxx.jl to replace the current ccall usage, so then that is >> no longer an objection. >> >> I'll give it a few more days and then proceed with the rename to and >> registration of CxxWrap.jl >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bart >> >> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 12:37:52 PM UTC+1, Morten Piibeleht wrote: >>> >>> I would second Erik, CXX seems to be the standard way of referring to >>> C++ (e.g. in makefiles), and it would be consistent with Cxx.jl. >>> >>> Also, maybe the shorter "CxxWrap.jl"? Sounds a tiny bit better to me >>> ("wrap C++ code in Julia") whereas CxxWrapper could be interpreted as >>> "wrapper around something (C++ toolchain?)". >>> >>>
