If it&#39;s semi-standard, we should probably support it too.<div><br></div><div>However, a Google search reveals the following other uses of .sls:</div><div>  - A list of images for a slideshow (&quot;sls&quot; stands for &quot;slideshow script&quot;)</div>
<div>  - The backup files for some program callled Litespeed</div><div>  - ScriptLab Scripts (seems to be an image generation program)</div><div>  - Configuration files for the Salt infrastructure management tool</div><div>
<br></div><div>So we probably shouldn&#39;t use it ourselves. (Plus, I personally think it&#39;s uglier than .scm, but that&#39;s not a strong argument.)</div><div><br></div><div>Noah</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Mark H Weaver <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:mhw@netris.org" target="_blank">mhw@netris.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello all,<br>
<br>
Any objections to adding &quot;.guile.sls&quot; and &quot;.sls&quot; to Guile&#39;s default<br>
%load-extensions?  Ian Price tells me that this naming convention is<br>
commonly followed for R6RS libraries and implementations, e.g. Racket,<br>
Mosh, Ikarus, and Ypsilon.  It would facilitate easy use of R6RS<br>
libraries without having to rename the files.  I&#39;m inclined to go along.<br>
<br>
What do you think?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
    Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>