Re: Interesting automake feature

[Jan Ekholm <chakie@infa.abo.fi>]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Christian Reiniger wrote:

>On Monday 2002-11-25 10:17, Jan Ekholm wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:
>> >Well, I write c++ and I name my header files foo.hh - your question
>> > would seem to imply that header files should be named foo - I don't
>> > agree.
>>
>> Does anyone have any hard facts on this issue? Are user apps allowed to
>> use #include "foo", #include <foo> or is that reserved for std headers,
>> and own headers are forced to use an extension? If that is the case
>
>#include "foo"
>#include <foo>
>#include "foo.png"
>#include "/etc/passwd"
>
>are all perfectly valid - the preprocessor just blindly includes the 
>specified file. The only requirement for it is that it has to resolve 
><iostream> and co to the proper standard library headers.
>
>I'd also advise for using some suffix for your own headers.

Ok, I'll do that later today. I have no doubt that it works, but I'm still
interested in why automake thinks it's ok to clobber files named "foo",
any why it ends up doing it. Compiling "foo.cpp" file should IMO not write
the output to "foo". Especially confusing is that it works for clean
builds, but not incremental builds.

Thanks to all how helped, and those on IRC that called me an idiot. :)

-- 
         Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
                                              -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather