[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: File names mangled for MS-DOS

>From michael Sat Sep  9 17:05:33 1989
	From: michael (Michael McClary)
	To: eric, us
	Subject: Re:  File names mangled for MS-DOS
	> Old Name		New Name
	> .h			c.h
	> .c			c.c
	> .o			c.o
	> .hxx			c.hxx
	> .cxx			x.cxx
	> .o			x.o
	Shouldn't those last three be either
	  .hxx			x.hxx
	  .cxx			x.cxx
	  .o			x.o
	  .hxx			c.hxx
	  .cxx			c.cxx
	  .o			c.o
	?  (BTW, I prefer the latter, but only slightly.  Is there some reason
	to mark .o files with their origin as c++ source?  We should never have
	both a Foo.c and a Foo.cxx, because some c++ compiler systems may produce
	a temporary Foo.c file in the directory containing the Foo.cxx.)

The reason for the x.o vs. c.o name ends is that we did not want to have any
unmarked cases.