>>>>> "Lassi" == Lassi A Tuura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Lassi> IMHO there shouldn't be a restriction to a single extension Lassi> though; all three of .cc, .cxx and .cpp are all quite Lassi> acceptable and projects should be free to choose the Lassi> conventions. It seems we are going to some wild area :( I'm tempted to say that the issue is too big, and we should not try to address it in Autoconf 2.50. Of course this is debatable. To properly solve this issue, we need to think carefully a solution for both Autoconf and Automake. IMHO, this goes beyond the scope of 2.50. After all, people who are facing this problem can write a wrapper � la `compile' to address this issue. There is one thing that 2.50 must do though: being able to run the AC_CHECK macros. So I'd say the current proposal (trying various extensions until one works) is OK. In the long run I find this more (universally) reliable than trying to find the option to have the compiler work for us. But again, if we keep this solution we committed nothing and we will be free to change our minds since all the details are hidden in Autoconf internals. What do you people think?
