Even non compiling editors will need to be aware of new syntax (if not BMIs) to show something meaningful for modules, aren't they?

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss_at_gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:40 AM
To: sg15_at_[hidden]; Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_gmail.com>
Cc: Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [SG15] module source suffixes

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
> doing?

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.)

--
Matthew