From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: The Road to 2.2 Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:23:55 -0400 Message-ID: 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f37c4442b0c04dd46f050 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1369196667 15265 80.91.229.3 (22 May 2013 04:24:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 04:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 22 06:24:27 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 1Uf0b9-0000oV-QJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 06:24:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53920 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf0b9-0002Dg-5f for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 00:24:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45182) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf0b3-0002DU-3J for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 00:24:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf0b2-0003G2-11 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 May 2013 00:24:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ve0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f]:56520) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uf0b1-0003Fy-SH; Wed, 22 May 2013 00:24:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id cz11so1089462veb.20 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:24:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=IwRrVDeriW4ObFbZKQYv7faSjJ2BVwkAJ66TmGT64Ps=; b=CjkXsvi84pH6RsNFjXKPuXhBU/YsyUBtgkvxCwhDzmsE7xtkH39xnP9yHWtIvv/VI3 JWpBXKLl/mw4cuoDXq+1oTcAzKJWggiQtBp8pgBHgxPlqXwYvOtAXYxi8lNVU8Y2OemM hlL95klVZu/QnIG6IzxqCLxRI9nK3g+/k8rZEOLS6ph159irnHPIREC2fc+GxEtq+yLA /hymmR9ifTmhgGFZ7JbdLK4Hgp4UW0+hrAIkwN3MPJDyE08HU+GmZDZ6e9Lznr63T/27 fQollhBGmOQ0mZU/uvelrK9+kiVxmZ6lrfHCfrfeHzEDBx7/OHRX538mdwv4DFox6Xzs lGtw== X-Received: by 10.52.89.3 with SMTP id bk3mr1871282vdb.21.1369196655277; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.58.112.166 with HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:23:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8761yey6fd.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c9wptiKoNFpm9gaZbj1NRLg10qk X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f 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:16404 Archived-At: --20cf307f37c4442b0c04dd46f050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ludovic Court=E8s 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=92d 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. Noah --20cf307f37c4442b0c04dd46f050 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ludovic Court=E8s <ludo@gnu.o= rg> wrote:
Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> s= kribis:

> On Sat 18 May 2013 15:44, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have a very small question, based on something I think you said<= br> >> earlier - since the container will be ELF, will we call our files = .so
>> now?
>
> We certainly can. =A0Is it a good idea though?

I=92d vote for keeping .go, or at least something different from
commonly-used extensions like .so.

I do= n'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.

Noah

--20cf307f37c4442b0c04dd46f050--