On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> > I was using .pas and .pac. Gotta think about 8.3ness, unfortunately.
>
> .pas is generally Pascal.
>
> I also think it's important we choose extensions based around their
> humour potential. With that in mind, I propose:
>
> .par for Parrot source, and .pao for Parrot Objects would be cool.
I like it. It's a race between those and Randal's .par and .rot (for the
bytecode) extensions.
> Actually, are these the only two types of file we're going to
> generate? Won't there be unoptimized bytecode, parse trees, etc? Do
> we want an integrated set of extensions (.pa?)?
All that goes into the bytecode files. There probably won't be separate
files for 'em.
Dan
