Re: underscores in gnulib file names

[Paul Eggert]

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.