What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard
headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h>)?  Just curious.  I'm
guessing that a new set of headers was needed when the original
<iostream.h> library was deprecated and the good names were all
taken.  Ditching the .h must have been a good way to keep those
familiar names in circulation without clashing with legacy code.
Perhaps the practice was later propagated for consistency? I'm
just guessing though...

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"Derek" <user@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:33g7loF3v7n0tU1@individual.net...

> What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard
> headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h>)?  Just curious.

So that existing implementations would not have to change existing headers
in ways that was likely to break user code.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Derek wrote:

> What was the rationale for dropping the .h suffix for standard
> headers (e.g., <iostream> vs <iostream.h>)?  Just curious.  I'm
> guessing that a new set of headers was needed when the original
> <iostream.h> library was deprecated and the good names were all
> taken.  Ditching the .h must have been a good way to keep those
> familiar names in circulation without clashing with legacy code.
> Perhaps the practice was later propagated for consistency? I'm
> just guessing though...

See <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DE39EA9.9D8B7DD4%40bawi.org>
and its replies.

(Recently requests to groups.google.com are being redirected to
groups-beta.google.com, where I cannot find how to browse in threaded
view. Does anyone know? One workaround is to use a localized site like
groups.google.co.kr (and add "&hl=en" as necessary for English messages):
<http://groups.google.co.kr/groups?selm=3DE39EA9.9D8B7DD4%40bawi.org&hl=en>;
but I'm not sure for how long it will work.)

--
Seungbeom Kim

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

I'm approving this because it's a followup to an approved article, but
discussion of the groups.google.com UI is not on-topic.  Further
discussion of this should go elsewhere.


===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
On 2004-12-29 23:11, Seungbeom Kim wrote:
:
> (Recently requests to groups.google.com are being redirected to
> groups-beta.google.com, where I cannot find how to browse in threaded
> view. Does anyone know?

There's a "view as tree" link at the end of the "messages x-y of z in
topic" line. Alternatively, you can use http://groups.google.co.uk/ to
get the non-beta UI.

-- Niklas Matthies

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]