On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:

> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a
> > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be
> > quite crazy.  For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2",
> > ".c-3", etc., it would get ugly fast.
> 
> Which is why programs that use any major C feature introduced since
> 1980 use the extension '.cc' or '.cpp'.

Except any program using .cc or .cpp for code is liable to break on
gcc, as they are C++ file extensions, and to the best of my (admittedly
limited knowledge) C and C++ are distinct languages...

So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for
misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager to
rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager from a
malicious ebuild masquerading under the wrong EAPI? Relying on the file
name for information is the kind of design decision we laugh at in
Windows, so why adopt it here?
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list