Jim Meyering wrote:
> I could live with ".in.h".
Good, thanks.
> However, I fear that if we depend on an "ok" from the Emacs maintainers,
> then neither "..h" nor ".in.h" will fly. Currently, no file name
> in emacs contains more than one ".".
That's my fear too: The Emacs 22.1 release still has had explicit porting
efforts for DOS.
So we could maybe do one of these:
- Remember that RMS asked for a renaming "in the long term". In the long
term, Emacs will drop support for DOS. We can tell RMS that as long as
Emacs requires support for DOS, we have not enough freedom of choice for
good file names without underscore, but once this limitation is gone,
we'll switch to a ".in.h" suffix.
- We can also use a "-in.h" suffix now. It smells the workaround (like
"install-sh" which is a workaround for the intended "install.sh"), but
it may be good enough.
Bruno
