From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-11 06:31:49
"Lars Gullik Bjønnes" <larsbj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:m3d646fj4c.fsf_at_tyfon.gullik.net...
> "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> 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