On 28 May 2010 20:03, anonymous <aim0s...@lavabit.com> wrote: > Why config.def.h is not named config.h.def? Extra "extensions" are > usually added after existing, like "config.h.bak". > > That way it would be possible to write > > config.h: > �...@echo creating $@ from $...@.def > �...@cp $...@.def $@ > > Or even better (will work if you don't rename it too): > > config.h: config.h.def > �...@echo creating $@ from $< > �...@cp $< $@
No. Can't see a big difference here; apart from that config.def.h has been the "dwm way" since 0.x times (hence for nearly 4 years now). Cheers, Anselm
