While I think it's no much sense, it feels harmless to me.
It may make some sense because some tools may turn
on syntax highlighting for example, or do some other
associated features to such known extension. It's
always better to use standard extensions if there is
one. .mk is also used in GNU Make documentation
examples.
The tools I use provide makefile syntax highlighting for .cf out of
the box. As well as for .mk. So .cf extension seems to be traditional,
to.
Double checked and .cf is indeed used in some places,
but the actual content wasn't GNU Make script in the
case I could fine (X11 it's C like content, it's also
sendmail config file, Imake config file, plus some
other such things).
.mk seems more widespread and non-ambiguous.
[ I may also rename /config dir to /gnumake.
I'm against it.
Any reasons?
[ for me 'config' doesn't seem like a common name for
similar purpose in other projects, nor does it really
describe the content, which is pure gnu make
logic/files/script. ]
It is a traditional name for GNU build environments. Also, it's
mnemonic while "gnumake" is very hard to remember.
Thank you.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
