On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> > wrote: >> I agree. I simply don't see the point to moving past the three-letter >> suffix space. > > I think Jon Rafkind made a good point on IRC, which is that as our > extensions proliferate we don't want to end up with a set like > OCaml's: .ml, mli, .cmo, .cma, .cmi, and .cmxa. Given a directory > with files of all those extensions, an outsider will have no idea what > language they correspond to -- except possibly the .ml one, because ML > is the full langauge name -- let alone which aspect of OCaml each > corresponds to. > > If we have ".ss" and ".rkt" and ".scrbl" and ".zo", it won't be clear > what language any of them correspond to, nor that they are all > related. If we have ".racket", at least that one extension will be > readable. If they were ".plt-scheme", ".plt-racket", ".plt-scribble", > and ".plt-compiled", their purpose and relationship would be much > clearer. Even without the "plt-" would give half that benefit > (purpose, but not relationship).
To be clear, I was illustrating the point of why I want longer names: for clarity of purpose of files. Going to long names all starting with ".plt-" would have lots of clarity. This is not, however, the time to change all our conventions at once. The ".plt-" and "scribble" and "compiled" parts are all purely hypothetical, as far as I am concerned. My concrete proposal is still to name our Racket files ".racket" and leave all existing extensions alone. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
