5 ms·

Haha, I started doing this with Cap'n Proto 10 years ago. :) I periodically get crap for it but so far it hasn't really broken anything. The biggest annoyance

Haha, I started doing this with Cap'n Proto 10 years ago. :) I periodically get crap for it but so far it hasn't really broken anything. The biggest annoyance is exactly what you point out -- the GitHub URLs look ugly because they %-encode the plus signs. Though it turns out you can manually un-encode them and it works fine.

teddyh 4y ago
It breaks Make, which does not have a default rule for “*.c++” files, but does have rules both for “*.cpp” files and the older naming custom of “*.C” files.
- jchw 4y ago
  In modern GNU make it is generally advised to disable default rules anyways. I know some people try to do portable Make, but I am pretty over that idea myself, so if I do use Make, I'm using GNU extensions and GNUmakefile.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    GNU Make does not have a rule for “*.c++” files, either. Do you have a reference to the advice to disable default rules? It sounds counterproductive to me.
    - jchw 4y ago
      There's lots of different opinions on how to use Make, but here's one. https://tech.davis-hansson.com/p/make/ https://tech.davis-hansson.com/p/make/
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Not very well recieved here on HN a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32541016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32541016
        jchw 4y ago
        That's a sign that it's good :) Jokes aside though, the only major complaint people have is about .RECIPEPREFIX, which I also don't follow. I didn't read too many comments, but the top voted comments do not appear to take issue with the advice to disable built-in rules. I'd be surprised, since it is far from the first time I've heard that advice, and it never seemed very controversial.
Thaxll 4y ago
Why would you use .c++ instead of the standard .cpp?
- kentonv 4y ago
  I got tired of arguing about .cpp vs. .cc vs. .cxx vs. .C. So I used the actual name of the language, and it worked fine. :)
  - breakingcups 4y ago
    https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

teddyh 4y ago

It breaks Make, which does not have a default rule for “*.c++” files, but does have rules both for “*.cpp” files and the older naming custom of “*.C” files.

jchw 4y ago
In modern GNU make it is generally advised to disable default rules anyways. I know some people try to do portable Make, but I am pretty over that idea myself, so if I do use Make, I'm using GNU extensions and GNUmakefile.
- teddyh 4y ago
  GNU Make does not have a rule for “*.c++” files, either. Do you have a reference to the advice to disable default rules? It sounds counterproductive to me.
  - jchw 4y ago
    There's lots of different opinions on how to use Make, but here's one. https://tech.davis-hansson.com/p/make/ https://tech.davis-hansson.com/p/make/
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Not very well recieved here on HN a month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32541016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32541016
      - jchw 4y ago
        That's a sign that it's good :) Jokes aside though, the only major complaint people have is about .RECIPEPREFIX, which I also don't follow. I didn't read too many comments, but the top voted comments do not appear to take issue with the advice to disable built-in rules. I'd be surprised, since it is far from the first time I've heard that advice, and it never seemed very controversial.

Thaxll 4y ago

Why would you use .c++ instead of the standard .cpp?

kentonv 4y ago
I got tired of arguing about .cpp vs. .cc vs. .cxx vs. .C. So I used the actual name of the language, and it worked fine. :)
- breakingcups 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/