Thanks for your elaborated insight on the history of headers! :) Btw. I guess you meant extentionless at the end? :)
Erlend From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Osfield Sent: 8. april 2008 16:56 To: OpenSceneGraph Users Subject: Re: [osg-users] why arent the ".h" postfix used in openscenegraph? On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Allright.. I didn't know that was the standard, allways used and seen ".h" used. :) The problems with standards is that their are jut so many to choose from... .h is most common for C++ simply from C heritage, but in the early days of C++ loads of others sprung up in the absence of any clear definition so .H, .hxx, .hpp and many other variants all turn up in the wild, there a many of these convoluted variations none of which really make any sense once you take a step back. When Standard C++ finally made it out it didn't use any of these convoluted attempts at something different from C's .h, rather it just dropped the extension entirely. Compilers just open files that are specified via #include without making any assumptions, so you can use absolutely anything you want, you could use .CPlusPlusHeaderFile if you wished and it'll still compile. Back in the late nineties I made the choice about extensionless header for the OSG as it aligns itself with what the Standard C++ headers convention, rather than going for one of the many .yetanotherabitaryc++headerextensions that were proliferating at the time. Back then I wouldn't have thought that it'd take more than a decade for IDE's to automatically realise that an extension C++ header file is a C++ header file.... for all the sophistication of modern software some really dumb arse things aren't possible... Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
