[osg-users] Announcement: VulkanSceneGraph and SceneGraphTestBed!

Björn Blissing bjorn.blissing at vti.se
Thu Jun 7 04:05:32 PDT 2018

robertosfield wrote:
> For the OpenSceneGraph, the VulkanSceneGraph I aspire to be a Stardard
> C++ library for real-time graphics.

In my mind (and I also think the general convention is that) the extensionless headers are reserved for libraries accepted into the STL by the ISO committee. Before that they should stick to .h or .hpp. This is also the process that the libraries which originated in boost use, i.e. they used .hpp while being part of boost and then removed the extension once they were accepted by the ISO committee. 

The boost FAQ answers the question like this:
Why do Boost headers have a .hpp suffix rather than .h or none at all? 
File extensions communicate the "type" of the file, both to humans and to computer programs. The '.h' extension is used for C header files, and therefore communicates the wrong thing about C++ header files. Using no extension communicates nothing and forces inspection of file contents to determine type. Using '.hpp' unambiguously identifies it as C++ header file, and works well in actual practice. 

robertosfield wrote:
> Really the answer is pretty simple, Visual Studio clearly isn't up to the job... the fact that MS haven't yet fixed this in over two decades doesn't validate that it's not broken.  MS over the years has tried hard to make C++ a pain in the butt to use under Windows.  I can't fix
> what MS choose to do, but also have no desire for bugs in 3rd party tools to dictate decisions on code I personally write, I want code that aspires to something more than lowest common denominators.

Well, Visual Studio is not the only IDE with these types of problems with extensionless headers. Other IDEs and other tools suffer the same problem. So the assumption that extensionless headers are reserved for ISO standardized libraries seems to be persistent outside MS as well.

Also simple file pattern matching in the console is much simpler when the header do have a file suffix.

So in my mind these are reasons enough to stick to headers with some form of standard file extension, at least if beauty and future aspirations are the only counter arguments. 

But once again, the decision is up to you. And we Visual studio developers will adapt and overcome, as we always have done. :)

Best regards,

Read this topic online here:

More information about the osg-users mailing list