On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:35:12AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> On 07/30/2013 08:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: >> >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote: >> >>>>I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c >> >>>>suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference >> >>>>where there is going to be none. >> >>>Yeah -- this sort of discrepancy I don't like either. In gcc/, we >> >>>have 362 .c files and 0 .cc files, so every new .cc file will step out >> >>>of line... That might be pain for people who are used to do >> >>>'grep foo gcc/*.c' and suchlike. >> >>Any issues with doing a mass rename then? >> I'd suggest waiting for a mass rename until the next stage 1... (or >> stage 0.9 :-) I will want to mass rename a lot of the files (ie, a >> lot of tree-* will lose the tree- prefix), and I think we'll be >> moving directory structures around as well... and some include files >> will be split up... etc. etc. Seems like a logical time to change >> extensions too. >> >> My point is, why go through the pain of changing a bunch of files >> now when we are probably going to do it again within a year. > > On second thought, yes, waiting for mass rename sounds better than to > add one .cc file... > > Marek
I am skeptical we would be able to implement mass renaming. -- Gaby
