On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 4:02 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 5/10/20 6:36 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > On 03/10/2020 08:23, chr...@rtems.org wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/c++/error > >> b/cpukit/include/rtems/c++/error > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000000..8b9d875e0f > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/cpukit/include/rtems/c++/error > >> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ > >> +/* -*- C++ -*- > >> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause > >> + * > >> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Chris Johns (http://contemporary.software) > >> + * > >> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > >> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > >> + * are met: > > > > Could you please use the new file template: > > > > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/coding-file-hdr.html#c-c-header-file-template > > > > Sure. > > > Do we really need editor-specific comments in the header files? > > Does it matter? >
That depends. Is the filetype comment embedding standardized across common editors? > > Maybe just use a *.h or *.hpp header file name? > > The file namea are inline with the names C++ uses. > This is related. For example, Windows does not do well with extensionless filenames. Neither do humans. It makes us have to guess unless we open with our tools. I get that the C++ committee likes the #include <something> without the .h/.hpp/.* but I find it annoying. I also won't find these files with find . -name "*.h*" or any kind of regex for that matter. I'm not convinced about these extensionless filenames at all. > Chris > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
