Code Comments
Programming Forum and web based access to our favorite programming groups.What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h> )? Just curious. (I already asked in comp.std.c++, but the moderators there work like molasses -- my post from yesterday still hasn't appeared.)
Post Follow-up to this message"Derek" <user@nospam.org> wrote in message news:33io6aF40n39vU1@individual.net... > What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard > headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h> )? Just curious. You'd have to ask the standards committee members to be sure, but I suspect at least part of the reason is to reduce the possiblity of conflicts with the inherited C headers (e.g <string.h> and <string>, each of which declares completely different things.) > > (I already asked in comp.std.c++, but the moderators there work > like molasses -- my post from yesterday still hasn't appeared.) Moderated groups are 'slow' by nature. I don't think it's legitmate to call the moderators 'slow as molasses', as their job is an unpaid volunteer activity. I'm sure they have their own lives to deal with too. -Mike
Post Follow-up to this messageDerek wrote: > What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard > headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h> )? Just curious. > > (I already asked in comp.std.c++, but the moderators there work > like molasses -- my post from yesterday still hasn't appeared.) Your post and responses appeared there yesterday! Prehaps it's your news server that's slow as molasses. Jeff
Post Follow-up to this messageDerek wrote: > What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard > headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h> )? Just curious. > > (I already asked in comp.std.c++, but the moderators there work > like molasses -- my post from yesterday still hasn't appeared.) I read it and the replies to it yesterday. Or was it somebody else's question? I saw 4 replies, IIRC, one from Andrew Koenig.
Post Follow-up to this messageVictor Bazarov wrote: > Derek wrote: > > > I read it and the replies to it yesterday. Or was it somebody else's > question? I saw 4 replies, IIRC, one from Andrew Koenig. Thanks for the heads up. It looks like my news reader/service is not picking up recent posts from comp.std.c++. I guess those volunteer moderators are faster than I gave them credit for. :)
Post Follow-up to this messageMike Wahler wrote: > > Moderated groups are 'slow' by nature. I don't think it's > legitmate to call the moderators 'slow as molasses', as their > job is an unpaid volunteer activity. I'm sure they have their > own lives to deal with too. First, it's my news service that's slow, not the moderators -- apparently I received replies yesterday, though I still can't see them through my usual means. Second, I wasn't knocking the moderators and I know they have lives. :) I only made that comment as a preemptive strike against the "ask in comp.std.c++" replies that I was expecting. :)
Post Follow-up to this messageDerek wrote: > What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard > headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h> )? Just curious. Because there was a de facto standard that most programmers were using and the names of headers was part of it. C++98 took these well-known names, modified them a bit and tried to make their content (if only the names used, such as cout and cin) as similar as possible to what people were used to. Finally, to avoid having two <iostream.h> on the same machine working differently, the .h was dropped. Stroustrup also says the .h is redundant because #include <> specifies a header, but that's a bit far fetched. Jonathan
Post Follow-up to this messageDerek wrote: > First, it's my news service that's slow, not the moderators -- > apparently I received replies yesterday, though I still can't see > them through my usual means. Second, I wasn't knocking the > moderators and I know they have lives. :) I only made that > comment as a preemptive strike against the "ask in comp.std.c++" > replies that I was expecting. :) May I ask what is the urgence in that type of question? -- Salu2
Post Follow-up to this messageJulián Albo wrote: > > May I ask what is the urgence in that type of question? There was no urgency except my own curiosity.
Post Follow-up to this messagePowered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2006 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.