On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Paul Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As others have stated, the compiler doesn't care about the header > extension and enforces no "standard" extension. Therefore, those of us in > OSG can do whatever we want. Indeed, the osgPlugins routinely use a ".h" > extension for their header files. The absence of an extension > creates problems for code editors that present non-intuitive interfaces for > controlling syntax highlighting. Appending ".h" to OSG headers would > eliminate this confusion. > There is a key difference between plugins and the includes is that plugins are not at all public so consistency is less critical, where as the include directories are the public face to the library so that everything has to be consistent, and in the OSG case its consistent with Standard C++ headers. As for using .h for telling editors that its a C++ file... well some editors interpret it as C file and apply different syntax highlighting than they do if its a C++ file. This is the reason why so many silly extensions for C++ files came into existence. Frankly if a modern C++ IDE doesn't interpret an extension header as C++ then its pretty dumb as the standard library itself has extensionless headers, one really has to question how well it supports Standard C++ if doesn't properly handle this basic fact of C++. Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
