"Lars Gullik Bjønnes" <larsbj@[...].net>  wrote in message
news:m3d646fj4c.fsf@[...]..
>  "John Maddock" <john@[...].uk> writes:
> 
>  >> Is there a good reason that the config library needs to use a
>  >> "creative" choice of file extensions rather than the boost
standard
>  >> of ".*pp"?
>  >
>  | Well they're not really complete .cpp files, and they're not
headers as such
>  | either - more like snippets of code that get #included by various
other
>  | files (the .cpp ones, and the configure script), so I wanted
something
>  | distinctive to separate them from regular source and header files.
> 
>  Then perhaps using some extension that is not a common C++ extension
>  would be better?
> 
>  I know that gcc uses .tcc for something similar to this.
>  (mostly for explict template instantiations)


The Boost.Threads library uses the .inl extension is used for this.

Mike



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost