On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > I decided to name the new file gimple-expr.[ch] instead of > gimple-decl.... This will eventually split into gimple-type.[ch], > gimple-decl.[ch], and gimple-expr.[ch].
Since we are adding *new* C++ files, can't we please name them *.cc for the implementation part, so at least create gimple-expr.h and gimple-expr.cc but not gimple-expr.c, please! There are some reasons to keep existing *.c files containing C++ code (IMHO the reasons are bad ones, and related to poor habits and to deficiencies in the version control system we have to use, but I really don't want to open that debate again). But for **NEW** files which are definitely in C++, I don't understand why they should be named .c files; this is confusing for all (and, for instance, when compiling them with Clang we are getting -IMHO rightly- some warnings about the file naming). If I remember well, there have been (in the discussion about naming C++ source files of GCC) a suggestion (and perhaps even a consensus), probably by Diego Novillo, to name *.cc our new files which are in C++. Having old C++ files named *.c is already a big frustration (most editors are by default configured to handle them as C, not as C++, files and most developers, notably newbies to GCC contributions, are expecting them to be C files not C++ ones). But IMHO having new source files inside GCC coded in C++ with a *.c file extension is non-sense; such files should have a .cc (or maybe .cpp or .cxx) extension, not a .c extension. Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
