| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:58:54 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Well, in general, if you rely on extensions changing every time a |
| 5 |
> > program cannot deal with a new feature of a file format, it would be |
| 6 |
> > quite crazy. For example, if C programs had to start using ".c-2", |
| 7 |
> > ".c-3", etc., it would get ugly fast. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Which is why programs that use any major C feature introduced since |
| 10 |
> 1980 use the extension '.cc' or '.cpp'. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Except any program using .cc or .cpp for code is liable to break on |
| 13 |
gcc, as they are C++ file extensions, and to the best of my (admittedly |
| 14 |
limited knowledge) C and C++ are distinct languages... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So relying on the file extension seems to be a recipe for |
| 17 |
misunderstanding. Why limit the functionality of the package manager to |
| 18 |
rely on the file names? How do you protect the package manager from a |
| 19 |
malicious ebuild masquerading under the wrong EAPI? Relying on the file |
| 20 |
name for information is the kind of design decision we laugh at in |
| 21 |
Windows, so why adopt it here? |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives