*. h or *. hpp for your C++ headers class definitions another convention is to use h for C headers and hpp for C++; a good example would be the boost library Quote from Boost FAQ, 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
Should I include lt;xxxx. h gt; or lt;cxxxx gt; in C++ programs? -1 re "we are not polluting the global namespace", you have just quoted and discussed that this is not the case so a bit of self-contradiction it is important because it directly affects the conclusion of what is best practice your conclusion above is wrong it is weird you first discuss why it's a bad choice (possibility of code not working across compilers, unintended namespace
c++ - . c vs . cc vs. . cpp vs . hpp vs . h vs . cxx - Stack Overflow * h or * hpp for your class definitions What is the difference between cc and cpp file suffix? I used to think that it used to be that: h files are header files for C and C++, and usually only contain declarations c files are C source code cpp files are C++ source code (which can also be C source code)
如何评价ThinkBook 14+ 16+ 2025款，是否值得购买？ - 知乎 R7 AI H 350+32 1T+3k120hz的14+卖6299，R7 AI H 350+32 1T+3 2k165hz的16+卖6499，基本上和U5是一个价格了。 这在去年问题不大，因为8845H产品力吊打125H，但是到了今年酷睿CPU，续航稳定进步，显卡也挤了牙膏，碰上AMD开始玩大小核+显卡架构小改后直接缩50%规格，还这么定价的
c++ - #include in . h or . c . cpp? - Stack Overflow In callback h you should include everything needed to compile against it But nothing more But nothing more Consider whether using forward declarations in your header file (such as class GtkButton; ) will suffice, allowing you to reduce the number of #include directives in the header (and, in turn, my compilation time and complexity)