larsbj@[...].net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:

>  "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, 

What makes something a "complete .cpp file?"

>   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?

Err.  The whole point of using ".hpp" was so that we could quickly
search through all the C++ source files with a simple filename
globbing pattern.  This is one of the first conventions we
established, at Nico's wise insistence.  At least use ".ipp", please!

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com

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