Subject: Re: [SG15] module source suffixes
From: Matthew Woehlke (mwoehlke.floss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-29 12:40:00
On 29/08/2019 13.31, Olga Arkhipova via SG15 wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 13.21, Ville Voutilainen via SG15 wrote:
>> A bit less than 20 years ago, half of my tools didn't think .cpp is
>> a c++ source file, and the other half didn't think .C or .cc are.
>> That was not a pleasant experience. While such problems are
>> temporary by nature, they are annoying.
> Can you please give an example of what those tools were actually
Opening such files as plain text?
> Do you think they/other tools will work with modules without
> any modification?
If we use a new file extension, I am 99% confident that this will happen
again, i.e. there will be tools (editors, especially) that will not
correctly "recognize" such files as containing C++ code.
(Note that this is the same issue I noted in my original reply to this
thread as a reason to avoid creating a new suffix unnecessarily, which
opened the discussion on said necessity.)
SG15 list run by email@example.com