extensions

Why do some scheme source files have .ss extension and others have .scm?

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

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

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.

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.