extdxxxx.l then or maybe xxxxextd.l, both have their pros and cons,
the first one makes it easy to see all the extensions the second makes
it easy to see which base libs have got extended features.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 07:09:34PM +0800, cle wrote:
>> 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" ...
> "aux" resembles too much the +Aux class and 'aux' function, IMO.
>> 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?
> There are the C-level extensions in "src/ext.c" with the 'ext:Xxx'
> functions, and "ext.l" with the interpreter runtime extensions.
> On the other hand, 'ext' is also used in the context of external
> symbols, i.e. the 'ext?' and 'ext' functions. This might be confusing.
> Cheers,
> - Alex
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to