Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

Keith Thompson wrote:
> The source file naming situation for C++ and Ada actually seems pretty

Very generally, I'd agree. However, I'd say C++ multiplies the problem 
quite a bit due to several factors.

For one thing, there are 3 types of files rather than 2: includes, code, 
and inline includes (or there are 2 or 4 types, depending on who you 
talk to). Also C++ compilers almost never try to enforce or encourage 
one standard or another. Build tools do sometimes encourage a subset, 
but rarely one particular scheme. So its generally up to the whims of 
the developers rather than the compiler toolkit designers. There are a 
whole lot more developers than there are compiler vendors, so this 
amounts to a conucopia of different file extension schemes one has to be 
prepared to deal with. Also this means that knowing what compiler you 
are using is no help.

> similar.  The C and Ada file naming conventions are also pretty
> similar, except that C's conventions are more consistent.

That depends on what you mean by "consistent". Across all compilers: 
yes. Within a single compilation enviroment: usually not.

It should also be noted that even where C is *more* consistent, it still 
isn't consistent. File name and directory path issues can still throw 
you off, and there are people (typically well out of baseball bat reach) 
who don't follow the standard. Few compilers try to enforce it, so like 
much of C, it is really only a standard in peoples' minds.

But without these Zen-like qualities, it just wouldn't be the C we all 
know and love, would it? :-)