[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: .h.in vs .in.h
|
From: |
John W. Eaton |
|
Subject: |
Re: .h.in vs .in.h |
|
Date: |
Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:16:16 -0400 |
On 11-Apr-2012, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
| Just the fact that the extension is .h and the file really isn't a
| header file. The only confusion I could see arising is if some IDE (is
| this done anywhere? Windows compilation perhaps?)
No, Octave uses automake for builds, even on Windows systems. And
you would still have to list the rules for building .h from .in.h or
your IDE would not know how to build the would not work.
Wow, I really thought this was a completely non-controversial change.
I mean, gnulib already uses this convention, so it's not like I'm
inventing anything new here.
jwe
- .h.in vs .in.h, John W. Eaton, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Júlio Hoffimann, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Michael Goffioul, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, John W. Eaton, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Júlio Hoffimann, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, John W. Eaton, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Júlio Hoffimann, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/04/11
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: .h.in vs .in.h, Daniel J Sebald, 2012/04/11