Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I admit that .eh seems a little odd, and would > require everyone to teach their editor about the new suffix.
True; that's a pain. > How about the "..h" suffix, e.g., stdlib..h? Do we care enough > about 8.3 limitations to worry about that? I don't think we do nowadays, no. Might some software get confused by the "..h" extension? Emacs treats "..h" like ".h"; perhaps that's good enough. Another option is to use "-e.h" as an extension, or something like that. But I like the brevity of "..h". I'd rather not have gnulib-tool rename files as it imports them, as that adds confusion.
