From: Neil Stevens <neil@...>
Date: 2004-06-12T02:58:39+09:00
Subject: Re: Switch to .ruby extension?

Mark Hubbart wrote:

> 
> On Jun 11, 2004, at 10:23 AM, Neil Stevens wrote:
> 
>> Karl von Laudermann wrote:
>>
>>> ... we could start using .ruby in new projects.
>>
>> What stops you from doing so now?
> 
> Well, it's not just a convention. it's built-in. Try requiring 'foo'
> when the file is named foo.rb.
> 
> FWIW, I see no reason not to support this, as long as it's an alternate
> extension. Having a file named foo.ruby is at least as easy to
> recognize as foo.rb.

Sure, I'm concerned about scripts, not libraries, though.

>> You're sure never going to get me to start mangling my script names
>> that
>> way.  I leave script names unadorned, in case I ever wish to change the
>> implementation.  This already paid off with shell scripts that I moved
>> to
>> ruby. :-)
> 
> Same here :)  But I think OP was talking about libraries/included code.

Well, he did say scripts and libraries.  I don't see what the names matter
for libraries, though.  Only the scripts are user-visible.

-- 
Neil Stevens - neil @hakubi.us
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
                                                 -- Albert Einstein(?)