From:	dahms AT ifk20 DOT mach DOT uni-karlsruhe DOT de
Subject:	RE: <string.h> .vs. <String.h>
30 Jan 1997 21:45:40 -0800 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<009AF2B1.418AF540.8748.cygnus.gnu-win32@ifk20.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Original-To:	shankar AT chromatic DOT com
Original-CC:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com, dahms AT ifk20 DOT mach DOT uni-karlsruhe DOT de
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

Hi, you wrote:

: Technically, the ANSI C++ committee is off the hook, because they have
: mandated that C++ include files be included simply as <String>,
: <iostream>, etc., and so it should be possible to distinguish between
: <String> and <string.h>.

I have never heard about the .h-less includes!

: In practice, however, 100% of all C++ installations still ship their
: files using a .h suffix, and we have a clash. Remember that ANSI C++
: still grandfathers in the <string.h> file from C, so we have a situation
: in which C++ implementations have to ship both files, and given the
: case-insensitive nature of many file systems, they have a problem on
: their hands.

Would it be possible having *identical* contents for both, depending
on _CPLUSPLUS or some such, protected from multiple includes by the same
ifdef, or both just including another, third file with a secure name?


Bye, Heribert (dahms AT ifk20 DOT mach DOT uni-karlsruhe DOT de)
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -