Home > Archive > Scheme > November 2004 > extensions
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Brad Bowes 2004-11-03, 3:57 am |
| Why do some scheme source files have .ss extension and others have .scm?
| |
| Shriram Krishnamurthi 2004-11-04, 3:57 am |
| Brad Bowes <bbowes@nowhere.not> writes:
> Why do some scheme source files have .ss extension and others have .scm?
".ss" is shorter. It stands for "Scheme source", permitting the use
of related abbreviations like ".so" (for "Scheme object code").
Unfortunately, "SS" has a most unfortunate history. For that reason,
and also because it's more suggestive, some people prefer ".scm".
Shriram
| |
| Antoun Kanawati 2004-11-04, 3:57 am |
| Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Brad Bowes <bbowes@nowhere.not> writes:
>
>
>
>
> ".ss" is shorter. It stands for "Scheme source", permitting the use
> of related abbreviations like ".so" (for "Scheme object code").
> Unfortunately, "SS" has a most unfortunate history. For that reason,
> and also because it's more suggestive, some people prefer ".scm".
And just to make life uncomfortable, .so files are usually shared
objects or shared libraries, usually written in C or C++ :)
--
A. Kanawati
NO.antounk.SPAM@comcast.net
| |
| Brad Bowes 2004-11-07, 3:57 pm |
| Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> ".ss" is shorter. It stands for "Scheme source", permitting the use
> of related abbreviations like ".so" (for "Scheme object code").
> Unfortunately, "SS" has a most unfortunate history. For that reason,
> and also because it's more suggestive, some people prefer ".scm".
I thought maybe there was some convention like .ss for reusable library
code and .scm for application-specific code. I guess that's not an
accurate observation.
| |
| Brad Bowes 2004-11-07, 3:57 pm |
| Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> ".ss" is shorter. It stands for "Scheme source", permitting the use
> of related abbreviations like ".so" (for "Scheme object code").
> Unfortunately, "SS" has a most unfortunate history. For that reason,
> and also because it's more suggestive, some people prefer ".scm".
I thought maybe there was some convention like .ss for reusable library
code and .scm for application-specific code. I guess that's not an
accurate observation.
|
|
|
|
|