ext/ names (was: re:[PATCH] HP/SGI extensions to...)

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> We do have backwards compatability to consider.  Perhaps renaming these
> with a .h would be a bad idea.  I had not considered this when I said
> "make no difference to me".

Hmm. I hadn't thought of this either. What does boost/STLport do with these 
extension files? Do they provide them with .h, no suffix, or what?

Also.... now that I think about it, some of the extensions have been 
proposed as formal extensions: we might want to pay attention to the 
naming schemes, as proposed.

(FWIW, I agree on the elegance point. The least-important criteria, 
unfortunately.)

> With much pain:

Yeah....

Anyway, I think Paolo's plan is good: proceed, finish the "hard" work, and 
then do a rename all at once.  

In the meantime, backwards issues and a casual sample of other 
vendor headers can be completed.

-benjamin