Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

["Marc A. Criley" <mcq95@earthlink.net>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes:
> 
> > Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message news:<x7vu1kss4q2.fsf@pushface.org>...
> > > Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > The sad thing is that although Ada is very portable in many
> > > > respects, the community of compiler vendors can't agree on
> > > > file-naming conventions.  Contrast with C, where everybody knows
> > > > what .h and .c mean.
> > >
> > > Is this a joke?
> 
> No, I wasn't joking.
> 
> >... cos it's clear that .h and .c have absolutely _no_
> > > semantic content!
> 
> Sure they do -- to programmers.  The "semantic content" is merely a
> convention, not enforced by compilers.  But that's OK -- at least
> you can write a bunch of .c and .h files, using the normal convention,
> and expect it to compile using *any* C compiler.

But contrast with C++ as well, where I've encountered both .h and .hh
for header files, and .cc, .cpp, .cp, and .cxx for source files.  Why
can't the C++ community agree on a file-naming convention?  (Note that
.h is ambiguous, since it's commonly used for both C and C++, and
obviously a .h file containing a class will not be compilable by a C
compiler.)

Marc A. Criley