[Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic
Larry Hastings
larry at hastings.org
Sun Jan 19 11:19:43 CET 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Sun Jan 19 11:19:43 CET 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic
- Next message: [Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 01/18/2014 10:36 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 19 January 2014 10:44, Steve Dower <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com> wrote: >> Visual Studio will try to compile them if they end with .c, though this can >> be disabled on a per-file basis in the project file. Files ending in .h >> won't be compiled, though changes should be detected and cause the .c files >> that include them to be recompiled. > That sounds like a rather good argument for .clinic.h over .clinic.c :) > > My assessment of the thread is that .clinic.h will give us the best > overall tool compatibility. Yeah, I'm tipping pretty far towards "foo.c" -> "foo.clinic.h". But there's one onion in the ointment: what should "foo.h" generate? The day may yet arrive when we have Argument Clinic code in foo.{ch}. Not kidding, my best idea so far is "foo.clinic.h.h", //arry/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140119/e028c0cd/attachment.html>
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic
- Next message: [Python-Dev] .clinic.c vs .c.clinic
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list