One challenge of reader-based approaches, like I-expressions and my own, is that loading needs to automatically use the "right" loader. Ideally, it should also be possible to use makefiles (etc.) to translate files to straight s-expressions, in case someone doesn't want to muck with a loader.
Which leads to the need for filename extension conventions. If there's a "normal" set of filename extensions, then it's easy for a loader (like "load") to determine what reader to use, and it's easy to create makefiles that "do the right thing". Here's my proposal: New filenames would be "reader-extension-letter" + "traditional-format-extension", where "reader-extension-letter" is: i = I-expressions m = modern-expressions s = sweet-expressions So a Scheme file with sweet-expressions would be ".sscm". If you use ".cl" for Common Lisp, an I-expression file would be ".icl" (or ".ilisp"). In many cases this means that it's more than 3 chars, but even if you have to use an 8+3 format, the first 3 characters are distinctive. But I think 8+3 only formats are getting rare. You wouldn't HAVE to use such conventions, but having conventions would make it possible to load files automagically... and that's helpful. E.G., I'd like to be able to run "guile blah.sscm" and have it work correctly. If there are no objections, I plan to modify sugar, etc., to recognize these extensions. That will make "load" more compatible with existing files, which should make it easier to convince people to use them. --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
