S
Steven T. Hatton
I'm reading through the Inventor Mentor for SGI's Open Inventor (C++ OpenGL
binding). I just noticed they named their example file "Molecule.c++".
This choice is so obvious and rational to me that I felt it wasn't even
worth discussing. The only reason I haven't used the .c++ extention is
that no one else seems to use it, and my tools don't recognize it. But now
I see that SGI was doing it ten years ago. Why didn't this become the
"standard"? ".c" means a C source file to both me, and my tools. I've
noticed this is what Stroustrup uses on his website - much to my surprize.
".cpp" is quite common, and is used by both Trolltech and KDevelop. To me,
"cpp" means the C preprocessor, so that convention seems wrong. Koenig and
Moo use ".cc" which is the most agreeable convention I've seen in common
use. But ".c++" is superior to all of these!
binding). I just noticed they named their example file "Molecule.c++".
This choice is so obvious and rational to me that I felt it wasn't even
worth discussing. The only reason I haven't used the .c++ extention is
that no one else seems to use it, and my tools don't recognize it. But now
I see that SGI was doing it ten years ago. Why didn't this become the
"standard"? ".c" means a C source file to both me, and my tools. I've
noticed this is what Stroustrup uses on his website - much to my surprize.
".cpp" is quite common, and is used by both Trolltech and KDevelop. To me,
"cpp" means the C preprocessor, so that convention seems wrong. Koenig and
Moo use ".cc" which is the most agreeable convention I've seen in common
use. But ".c++" is superior to all of these!