Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
> Ah, true.
>
>> So my suggestion would be to use something like *.pd_lua, *.pdlua or
>> *.l_lua as extension. What do you think? The same question may become
>> an issue for other loaders as well, so a standard solution would be
>> nice.
>
> Ok, expect this change in the next release (sometime in March). I'm
> leaning towards *.pd_lua personally, to match *.pd_linux and
> *.pd_darwin, but if anyone has strong objections let me know.
i too think that "*.pd_lua" would be the best choice, even though
*.pd_linux" seems to be deprecated in feavour of *.l_i386/*.l_ia64;
since the lua-scripts are supposed to be platform&architecture
independent the "l" and "${arch}" part so not make much sense, so i
guess *.pd_lua is the best choice.
(the point of this email is mainly, that *.pd_linux,... is not
necessarily the best template to build on, even though in this case it is)
fmgasd.r
IOhannes
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
