Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I prefer ..h, too. Does anyone object?
