Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
>   
>> extpilog.l maybe?
>>     
>
> Nice. Would be in sync with other "ext"ensions.
>   

Why not? This would allow us to put in other useful Pilog clauses as
well, whose would not necessarily be Prolog compatibility clauses.
Another idea could be "auxpilog.l" ...

But as you mention it where in sync with other extensions, where in the
picoLisp sources are other files following that scheme i.e.
"ext<whatever>.l". It seems to me, that "extpilog.l" would be the first
one, wouldn't it?

Ciao,
cle.

-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to