From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nala Ginrut Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The Road to 2.2 Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:50:06 +0800 Organization: HFG Message-ID: <1369205406.2610.45.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> References: <878v3dgtv0.fsf@pobox.com> <87y5bce2pe.fsf@pobox.com> <8761yey6fd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369205439 26960 80.91.229.3 (22 May 2013 06:50:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= , guile-devel To: Noah Lavine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 22 08:50:36 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf2se-0007aP-J0 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:50:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54776 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf2se-00018Z-7t for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 02:50:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf2sU-00015Z-Uw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 02:50:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf2sP-0006Lm-Gp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 02:50:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:37988) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf2sG-0006Jy-4j; Wed, 22 May 2013 02:50:12 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rl6so1494475pac.28 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:50:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:content-type:x-mailer:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zBG2pP4/zq6BKJLQMBF0S8BqYwFJWO9nvoi8++LjhsU=; b=b26CI2nBCZKzyH82zage0mxRp8MjSbpgKZ6C9DBM8q5p+XQpoL+o4Lmp9Nr57Mac50 /I/ktMX8b0hasi+1fwPuIAQ2W8av4wPg5s0ekBd/5fftpaJ5t0Alt79EUVSc39CUuapp 7zkCFPFiCu1LQN7ZGhzML+1BG7NJOdgpdyAtP3oJq8rOTk3PKO7j2IQQ58ysqlpMbvTm d1ZGI3ufvewW2l60NDRZjelC6jHnHmftH6/qcMcSO0IFw3QOl+ptbdVwkER7bikGPNLw p/ivxn60OZ8UBAtYmefwJsSU2mQJr2IDVSXtbqG70nhoukbXvLSuka2ku6MzoXZ7N4Io SmOw== X-Received: by 10.66.20.234 with SMTP id q10mr6888476pae.201.1369205410691; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [147.2.147.115] ([61.14.130.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ag4sm6025141pbc.20.2013.05.21.23.50.08 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 21 May 2013 23:50:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.220.41 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:16406 Archived-At: On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 00:23 -0400, Noah Lavine wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > Andy Wingo skribis: > > > > > On Sat 18 May 2013 15:44, Noah Lavine writes: > > > > > >> I have a very small question, based on something I think you said > > >> earlier - since the container will be ELF, will we call our files .so > > >> now? > > > > > > We certainly can. Is it a good idea though? > > > > I’d vote for keeping .go, or at least something different from > > commonly-used extensions like .so. > > > > I don't think it's a big deal, but the reason I asked was that I'm afraid > .go will become increasingly popular because of the Go language. .so also > sort of hints at native compilation in the future, although that's not a > very strong reason to choose it. > How about .glc or .glo? But anyway, I don't think we should yield against a competitor. > Noah