On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:58:38AM -0500, Ed Cogburn wrote: > Mike M wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:55:36PM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote: > > > >Got here late. Didn't see thread. Use g++ instead of gcc. The .h is > >optional with g++ 2.95.4 and g++ 3.0.4. Compiling with -Wall didn't > >generate a warning when iostream.h was used. IIRC I did see a nastygram > >about .h being deprecated, but I didn't see it on the following: > > > I don't know if .h is officially deprecated now, but it probably will be in > the future at some point. Referring to C++ headers without the .h is part > of the C++ "standard" now (mentioned in my reference book on standard C++). > The intent is to visually separate the old C headers from the new C++ ones. > For the old headers you still use .h, but for the C++ headers you don't.
I'd like to see them try and deprecate .h files. There's just too much code out there using .h files. I would be economically wasteful to impose such a change. Compilers that remove .h files or complain about deprecated .h files will be ignored. Can you imagine paying programmers to change source to use no .h files? How much will that cost? I am sure comments in C++ beginning with "//" are in the standard. But the standard also allows "/**/". The C++ comment style is no evenly implemented. I am currently working where C++ comments are not allowed. The real standard is what people use and not what committees write. -- Mike Two hundred years ago, we note mischievously, the average American or European had a standard of living not very much superior to that of the average man in India or China. -- dailyreckoning.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
