The reasons for having extensionless header files have long been a question that I've never commented on (not just regarding OSG). Perhaps the people writing the standards were trying to boycott certain command line tools such as grep that can really benefit from having files with extensions... Who knows?
Anyway, I never complained about it because, as the old saying goes, "never look a gift horse in the mouth." I'll gladly put up with header files without the ".h" if it means getting to use a free tool like OSG. My 2 cents... Brian On Tue Apr 8 15:48 , "Paul Martz" sent: >I agree that a "C++ IDE" should do the right thing for extensionless files and >assume they are C++ -- especially in the case where they are listed as headers >in the currently open project, for crying out loud :-). However, C++ IDEs >aren't >the only problem... > >Consider any one of dozens of general purpose text >editors with support for source code syntax highlighting, which someone might >use not just for editing extensionless headers, but also for editing raw text >files with extensionless names like "readme," "passwd," and "mnttab". >Obviously >I don't want C++ syntax highlighting in just any old file that happens to not >have an extension. Files with extensionless names have existed long >before C++, and many are still around today that have nothing to do with C++. >It >was a mistake for C++ to try to claim extensionless files as their own, a >mistake that currently plagues us on this list in the form of quarterly >discussions on the subject. > >Although adding ".h" extensions to OSG headers would go >a long way towards eliminating this regular discussion topic, I'm certainly >not calling for a change: I'm an old timer, who grew up writing code with >black >teletype text on rolls of white paper and punched cards (later, green CRT >text on a black background), so I could care less whether syntax highlighting >is >available. Besides, as we all know, changing the headers to use .h is >well-nigh >impossible at this point, it would completely alienate the existing user base. >However, I think lacking the ".h" extension is a mistake that I would rectify, >were I to write a next-generation scene graph. >  -Paul > > > > > > > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert > Osfield >Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:58 PM >To: > OpenSceneGraph Users >Subject: Re: [osg-users] why arent the ".h" > postfix used in openscenegraph? > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Paul Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As others have stated, the compiler > doesn't care about the header extension and enforces no "standard" > extension. Therefore, those of us in OSG can do whatever we want. Indeed, > the osgPlugins routinely use a ".h" extension for their header files. The > absence of an extension creates problems for code editors that present > non-intuitive interfaces for controlling syntax highlighting. Appending > ".h" > to OSG headers would eliminate this confusion. > > >There is a key difference between plugins and the includes is that > plugins are not at all public so consistency is less critical, where as the > include directories are the public face to the library so that everything > has > to be consistent, and in the OSG case its consistent with Standard C++ > headers. > >As for using .h for telling editors that its a C++ > file... well some editors interpret it as C file and apply different syntax > highlighting than they do if its a C++ file. This is the reason why so > many silly extensions for C++ files came into existence.  Frankly > if a modern C++ IDE doesn't interpret an extension header as C++ then its > pretty dumb as the standard library itself has extensionless headers, one > really has to question how well it supports Standard C++ if doesn't properly > handle this basic fact of >C++. > >Robert. >
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
