So .. is there any good reason for this? Who cares about SLOC? And just a hint, you'd brake any existing code by changing the extension. Just look at Qt (#include <QWidget>) or the STL headers (#include <string>). They don't need any extension, and no one has had any problem in many years with it.
> Hello! > >> This is very very inconvenient. Do you have any suggestions ? >> If not, I have a proposal : keep the "extensionless" include files (of >> course !) but make them empty proxies for includes with an extension. > Want to know why authors of Wt name headers without extension. > Is it possible to rename them to .hpp in a next major version? > >> For example, Wt/WWidget would only contain this line : #include >> <Wt/WWidget.h> (or any naming/location variant you may want) > It is better not to use .h extension for C++ headers. This can confuse > several programs. Extension hpp could be used. > > BR. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list witty-interest@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
