What extension do folks use for their Lisp source code? '.lisp'?
'.cl'? Or something else? I guess folks on 8.3 filesystems can't wery
well use '.lisp'. Do any popular Lisp tools require a specific
extension? I'm working on a guide for new Lispers and was wondering
what to tell them to use. (I've been using '.lisp' but I see other
folks using '.cl'.)
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
The intellectual level needed for system design is in general
grossly underestimated. I am convinced more than ever that this
type of work is very difficult and that every effort to do it with
other than the best people is doomed to either failure or moderate
success at enormous expense. --Edsger Dijkstra
Peter Seibel <·····@javamonkey.com> writes:
> What extension do folks use for their Lisp source code? '.lisp'?
> '.cl'? Or something else? I guess folks on 8.3 filesystems can't wery
> well use '.lisp'. Do any popular Lisp tools require a specific
> extension? I'm working on a guide for new Lispers and was wondering
> what to tell them to use. (I've been using '.lisp' but I see other
> folks using '.cl'.)
I prefer .lsp when .lisp is too long. That's the name that has
traditionally been used for file systems with 8.3-style limitations.
It's true that some Lisps seem to use .cl, though.
From: Steven M. Haflich
Subject: Re: File extension for source files? .lisp or .cl?
Date:
Message-ID: <3E7B6159.20901@alum.mit.edu>
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> I prefer .lsp when .lisp is too long. That's the name that has
> traditionally been used for file systems with 8.3-style limitations.
>
> It's true that some Lisps seem to use .cl, though.
It is true that 8.3 filesystems rarely need be considered these days.
However, a generic name like "lisp" or "lsp" doesn't denote any
specific lisp dialect. That's why "el" is standardly used for elisp,
and why it may be useful to be able to denote "cl" for putative
Common Lisp source files. On certain GUI systems this allows
more specificity in associating the correct application to launch
when a source file is clicked, or a file browser is presenting files
to load of compile.
However, the extension one uses should not be a matter of great
concern. God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname
calculus of CL to help deal with this. At least, I think it was God,
not the other guy.
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
> of CL
Why didn't he tell anyone? Can I download his extensions somewhere?
Regards
Henrik
From: Steven M. Haflich
Subject: Re: File extension for source files? .lisp or .cl?
Date:
Message-ID: <3E7BD4C3.7060203@alum.mit.edu>
Henrik Motakef wrote:
> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>
>>God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
>>of CL
>
> Why didn't he tell anyone? Can I download his extensions somewhere?
In the case of pathnames, the only likely path to enlightenment
is prayer. A proper prayer: "Please, God, make my understanding of
CL pathnames the same as my understanding of the other parts of the
language." The danger, of course, is that the prayer will be granted
and you will no longer understand closures, or the condition system,
or eval-when semantics. God is no fool and doesn't imlpement
miracles when a simple patch will suffice.
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
> Henrik Motakef wrote:
>
> > "Steven M. Haflich" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
> >> of CL
> >
> >
> > Why didn't he tell anyone? Can I download his extensions somewhere?
>
>
> In the case of pathnames, the only likely path to enlightenment
> is prayer. A proper prayer: "Please, God, make my understanding of
> CL pathnames the same as my understanding of the other parts of the
> language." The danger, of course, is that the prayer will be granted
> and you will no longer understand closures, or the condition system,
> or eval-when semantics. God is no fool and doesn't imlpement
> miracles when a simple patch will suffice.
I think that a better route is for you folks at Franz and some folks at
Xanalys (and maybe somebody else as well) to sit down somwhere and
decide what should go in the slots of a PATHNAME, given (at least)
1 - Unix, MS Windows, Mac (maybe moot right now) file systems and
whatever file system you implementations run on.
2 - Take into account the IETF specs for URI, URN, URL etc etc.
3 - Agree to ask the other vendors/implemetors about their practices on
a given platform before releasing or implementing a given version.
This is just for PATHNAMEs. It shouldn't be all that difficult.
This is what the "lusers" pray for :)
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: File extension for source files? .lisp or .cl?
Date:
Message-ID: <n0jkq0as.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
"Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
> of CL to help deal with this. At least, I think it was God, not the
> other guy.
God wrote the specs; the other guy was responsible for the
implementation.
>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
Joe> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
>> of CL to help deal with this. At least, I think it was God, not the
>> other guy.
Joe> God wrote the specs; the other guy was responsible for the
Joe> implementation.
Heh. OT, but somewhat related. In the early days of digital
cellular systems in the US, there was a contest to select the voice
coder. Much glory, fame, and royalties to the winner. At the time,
AT&T Bell Labs was acknowledged to have the BEST vocoders. It was
almost a given that they would win.
However, they came in dead last, to everyone's surprise. No could
figure out the real reason, but everyone guessed that the implementors
were not the research guys who invented it and the implementors
screwed up the implementation.
Ray
P.S. And when the winner was announced at the meeting, the
representative from Hughes Electronics (I think) stood up and said
that that can't be right because their vocoder didn't have those kinds
of scores. :-) Much confusion ensued.
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
>> of CL to help deal with this. At least, I think it was God, not the
>> other guy.
>
> God wrote the specs; the other guy was responsible for the
> implementation.
This is entirely in keeping with the popular wisdom that "the devil is
in the details", as they all get the details different ...
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: Ben Olasov
Subject: Re: File extension for source files? .lisp or .cl?
Date:
Message-ID: <3E83B4F0.DE32B96B@pacbell.net>
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
> > "Steven M. Haflich" <·················@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >
> >> God invented the flexible, elegant, and intuitive pathname calculus
> >> of CL to help deal with this. At least, I think it was God, not the
> >> other guy.
> >
> > God wrote the specs; the other guy was responsible for the
> > implementation.
>
> This is entirely in keeping with the popular wisdom that "the devil is
> in the details", as they all get the details different ...
Actually, the original quote (from architect Mies Van der Rohe) was "God is
in the details". Not sure how the alternative version got propagated...
>
>
> -dan
>
> --
>
> http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources