On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:35:12AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 08:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>>>I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
> >>>>suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
> >>>>where there is going to be none.
> >>>Yeah -- this sort of discrepancy I don't like either. In gcc/, we
> >>>have 362 .c files and 0 .cc files, so every new .cc file will step out
> >>>of line... That might be pain for people who are used to do
> >>>'grep foo gcc/*.c' and suchlike.
> >>Any issues with doing a mass rename then?
> I'd suggest waiting for a mass rename until the next stage 1... (or
> stage 0.9 :-) I will want to mass rename a lot of the files (ie, a
> lot of tree-* will lose the tree- prefix), and I think we'll be
> moving directory structures around as well... and some include files
> will be split up... etc. etc. Seems like a logical time to change
> extensions too.
>
> My point is, why go through the pain of changing a bunch of files
> now when we are probably going to do it again within a year.
On second thought, yes, waiting for mass rename sounds better than to
add one .cc file...
Marek
