Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
There are two popular naming conventions:
Please discuss the problems/benefits associated with either approach.
I am also wondering if it is possible to expose meta-data (i.e. compiler, platform, build-type) in approach #1 in an easy to use, cross-platform manner.
#2 is good for distribution, where several variation will be packaged in the same folder/zip file together. However, you probably don’t want all that information in the file name itself, as it make it difficult to vary those via parameters to your makefile/csproj/nant script etc. It would be easier to have several files called ‘foo’ in different folders (where you can decide the folder structure)