From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c019ad9cc913bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-19 03:54:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D89AE34.BA601164@earthlink.net> From: "Marc A. Criley" Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits" References: <1b585154.0209121449.ef12609@posting.google.com> <3D819EE7.3A69E5EB@praxis-cs.co.uk> <4519e058.0209160548.461cef27@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:53:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.189.224.115 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1032432829 63.189.224.115 (Thu, 19 Sep 2002 03:53:49 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 03:53:49 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29162 Date: 2002-09-19T10:53:49+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) writes: > > > Simon Wright wrote in message news:... > > > Robert A Duff 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