[petsc-dev] Use of '//' comments in C source

[Matthew Knepley]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>  I cannot remember why or when I rejected using a different suffix for C++
> code but I agree using .cxx is better than .c and includes should also be
> different .hxx?


Okay, I will switch. We have been using *.hh for C++ headers, which I
believe is standard.

    Matt


>
>   Barry
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
> > But not *.c. I don't care what you use, dammit, just be consistent and
> don't use *.c for C++-only code.
> >
> > If this is a time to chime in, I would prefer *.cxx as the C++ extension.
> One of my collaborators using *.cpp for doing funky c-prepocessing.
> >
> > Sean
>
>


-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110922/74a40ecb/attachment.html>