.C2 for CPP2 source extension?

[jamadagni]

I noticed that we have .h2 for CPP2 header extension. If so .c2 is the simplest source extension no? Why the verbose .cpp2?

Are we trying to give space for a non-existent C2? Already C++ == C+1, and this is that + 1, so C2 is right I feel. 🙂

Anyhow if such a C2 language might exist in future (unlikely?), then it would require the .h2 extension also, which we aren't trying to avoid.

Some naming conventions use .hpp against .h for C++ headers against C ones, but mostly .h is used. So nobody insists on avoiding .h2 and using .hpp2 for CPP2 I guess.

But if .h2 is acceptable then the simplest would be .c2 and not .cpp2. Note that it would be easier to distinguish from .cpp in file listings and would fit within the same (less) number of columns too.

[DyXel]

A quick search reveals that C2 Programming Language already exists and does in fact use the .c2 extension.

Anyhow if such a C2 language might exist in future (unlikely?), then it would require the .h2 extension also

AFAIK doing headers + translation unit is a dying tradition, modern languages try to implement modules which avoid most (all?) problems of having a preprocessor while being faster to compile. The aforementioned language implements modules, so it doesn't use headers and thus has no need for .h2.

Most C++ projects I have been involved in or read use .hpp (Boost Header policy comes to mind a lot here), so actually, going full .hpp2 makes more sense if we are talking about explicitly Cpp2 headers. In any case, from what I understood, headers are a transitional tool and when C++ modules are properly supported, that will be the main way of writing code.

[jamadagni]

Oh sorry for not checking first before I spoke. And yes, I hope we won't need .h2 files in Cpp2 as well. Then .cpp2 is fine if a bit verbose.

Maybe we should try .cqq [tongue_in_cheek] … ouch even that is taken (sort of… 😏)