On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Michele Simionato wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:49 pm, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any good arguments for keeping ".ss" and ".scm"
for library file names?
I cannot think of any good argument. Of course, that means
that if other R6RS implementations keep using .ss and .scm
as valid library extensions, then porting to Ikarus will
require renaming the extension.
My only concern is if there is an implementation out there that
does not support the ".sls" extension. In that case, the change
would require the user to copy or symlink every library (instead
of renaming it). Renaming is not too bad I don't think, but I
would like to know if anybody is really attached to the ".ss" or
".scm" extensions.
This is a very minor disadvantages however, compared to the
advantages of having a single extension (I hate when PLT uses
.ss for libraries, since I never know if I am supposed to run
the file or to import it).
It seems that many people now use ".sls" for their "library"
sources and ".sps" for their "program" sources.
I need to convert to the new trend myself. :-)
Aziz,,,
