[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> I see it's not specifically mentioned in standards.info.
> Maybe someone will add it, there.
>
> "someone" = mail bug-standards, preferably with a patch, and I will
> raise it with rms. That is, if we really want it.
Thanks.
> At least those particular cases don't bother me as much as say,
> foo_bar.c would.
>
> Personally, I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, I don't have any
> particular arguments for why gnulib should use, say, stdint_.h instead
> of stdint-.h.
The existence of files that fit that mold (end in -.h), but
that aren't templates:
$ ls *-.h
fcntl--.h stdio--.h stdlib--.h unistd--.h
But that might be best after all, in spite of having to
exclude files like the above: match *[^-]-.h instead of *-.h.
> I'm not crazy about .eh or ..h, having basically never seen them before,
> but don't have any particular arguments for/against them, either.
>
> As for 8.3, I'm not sure. Somehow I had the impression DJGPP was 8.3,
> or people will still using it on good old DOS, or something.
I've stopped worrying about 8.3 for a long time in coreutils,
and even about the max-14-byte-entname limitation. No one has
complained in years.
