Re: underscores in gnulib file names

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I admit that .eh seems a little odd, and would
>> require everyone to teach their editor about the new suffix.
>
> True; that's a pain.
>
>> How about the "..h" suffix, e.g., stdlib..h?  Do we care enough
>> about 8.3 limitations to worry about that?
>
> I don't think we do nowadays, no.  Might some software get confused by
> the "..h" extension?  Emacs treats "..h" like ".h"; perhaps that's
> good enough.  Another option is to use "-e.h" as an extension, or
> something like that.  But I like the brevity of "..h".
>
> I'd rather not have gnulib-tool rename files as it imports them, as
> that adds confusion.

I prefer ..h, too.  Does anyone object?