Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #26892 > unrolled thread

Making Forth official

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-21 13:23 +0000
    Re: Making Forth official Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-11-21 14:54 +0100
      Re: Making Forth official gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2013-12-03 11:59 -0800
    Re: Making Forth official anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-11-21 13:57 +0000
      Re: Making Forth official Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 15:49 +0000
        Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 16:03 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 23:27 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2013-11-21 19:20 -0500
            Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 10:43 +0000
              Re: Making Forth official Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-22 17:24 +0100
                Re: Making Forth official Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 14:11 +0100
          Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-22 01:59 +0000
            Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 11:00 +0000
              Re: Making Forth official rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-11-22 12:05 -0500
                Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 21:15 +0000
      Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-22 01:55 +0000
    Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-21 15:50 +0000
      Re: Making Forth official Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-22 00:03 +0100
      Re: Making Forth official Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-11-22 08:19 +0100
        Re: Making Forth official m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-11-21 23:42 -0800
          Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-23 17:22 +0000
            Re: Making Forth official Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-11-24 14:07 +0100
        Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 11:30 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-11-22 11:35 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-11-23 19:11 +1100
            Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-23 12:46 +0000
              Re: Making Forth official "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-11-27 12:42 +1100
                Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 03:35 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-23 17:31 +0000
            Re: Making Forth official "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-24 04:35 -0500
    Re: Making Forth official ForthFreak <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-11-21 23:53 -0800
    Re: Making Forth official "Mark" <mark@dibsco.co.uk> - 2013-12-31 16:48 +0000
      Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-12-31 22:49 +0000
        Re: Making Forth official Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-31 15:10 -0800
          Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-01 14:12 +0000
            Re: Making Forth official anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 17:46 +0000
              Re: Making Forth official Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-02 13:03 -0800
                Re: Making Forth official "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:16 -0500
                Re: Making Forth official Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-03 01:24 -0800
              Re: Making Forth official "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:13 -0500
        Re: Making Forth official anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 17:33 +0000
          Re: Making Forth official albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 19:22 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#26917

In article <7aa8219c-2ad7-4aae-9cff-e5f62335e7ec@googlegroups.com>,
 <m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl> wrote:
>On Friday, November 22, 2013 8:19:49 AM UTC+1, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> These Forth file extensions are used on GitHub, ordered from most
>> popular to least: 1. fs 2. fth 3. f 4. 4th 5. fr 6. frt 7. forth
>> 8. 4
>> I have attempted to avoid false positives from e.g. F# files.
>
>So why not use .forth ? Everybody will be inconvienced to the same
>degree and how much clearer can we get? (The .forth extension is
>used for the problem/example files on the SF pages).

Indeed why not? The only problem is with the poor sobs that still
use MS-DOS. 1] Yet I'm inclined to 4th as most often used extensions
fall in the 1..3 range.

1] I still hear from people that they are using old Forth's in
DOS-Boxes ... And ciforth for dpmi only handles 8+3 names, but at
last there is wina for 32 bits windows.

>
>-marcel
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26924

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Indeed why not? The only problem is with the poor sobs that still
> use MS-DOS. 1] Yet I'm inclined to 4th as most often used extensions
> fall in the 1..3 range.
> 
> 1] I still hear from people that they are using old Forth's in
> DOS-Boxes ... And ciforth for dpmi only handles 8+3 names, but at
> last there is wina for 32 bits windows.
Agreed. I still make DOS versions of my own compiler and they're still
downloaded about a 100 times per release. For that reason, all my files are
still 8.3 compliant. I know, it's quite a burden to take along 30 years
later, but as long as there's an audience, I don't see a reason not to
recite ;-)

You're welcome to disagree with me.

Hans Bezemer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26909

"Lars Brinkhoff"  wrote in message news:85a9gwlx7u.fsf@junk.nocrew.org...
>
>Mark wrote:
>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> > With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the de
>> > facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is
>> > important since Linux has attained world domination.
>> Personally I have always quite liked .4th as being suitably
>> descriptive and to the point.
>
>These Forth file extensions are used on GitHub, ordered from most
>popular to least:
>
>1. fs
>2. fth
>3. f
>4. 4th
>5. fr
>6. frt
>7. forth
>8. 4
>
>I have attempted to avoid false positives from e.g. F# files.

Thanks for the list - very useful.

It looks like I am going to have to make a decision regarding file 
extensions for the gedit syntax highlighter very soon. The developers are 
proposing that I drop all conflicting file extensions as a minimum and 
possibly consider picking just one.

Based on the above list .fs (FSharp) and .f (Fortran) would need to be 
dropped. A quick web search reveals that .fth is associated with FileMaker 
Pro, .fr is associated with movie capture files and .frt is associated with 
FoxPro report files. I realise that these aren't necessarily going to be a 
problem for a programmers text editor, but they do appear to be primarily 
recognised as things other than Forth source.

A search on filext.com shoes that .4th is primarily associated with Forth 
source.

The adoption of .4th and .forth seems to make a great deal of sense to me.

Regards

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26910

"Mark"  wrote in message news:SNWdnR2x84_23RLPnZ2dnUVZ7tudnZ2d@bt.com...

>A search on filext.com *shoes* that .4th is primarily associated with Forth 
>source.

That should be 'shows'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26914

Mark wrote:
> ...
> Based on the above list .fs (FSharp) and .f (Fortran) would need to be
> dropped.
> ...

Which, of course, won't stop others using them.

I see Forth as an 'unofficial language' - by which I mean it resists attempts
to be categorized, controlled or standardized.  If you know what is Forth,
then you are talking about something else which is already dead :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26915

In article <l6po0o$let$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ed <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>> ...
>> Based on the above list .fs (FSharp) and .f (Fortran) would need to be
>> dropped.
>> ...
>
>Which, of course, won't stop others using them.
>
>I see Forth as an 'unofficial language' - by which I mean it resists attempts
>to be categorized, controlled or standardized.  If you know what is Forth,
>then you are talking about something else which is already dead :)

Given that the only thing BASIC languages have in common is the file
extension, we could have the same.

We can't be dead, because we don't even exist. It would be a great progress
if someone sees dinges.4th and asks himself "I wonder what that *Forth* file
is doing in /tmp"

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26989

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <l6po0o$let$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ed <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> ...
> >I see Forth as an 'unofficial language' - by which I mean it resists attempts
> >to be categorized, controlled or standardized.  If you know what is Forth,
> >then you are talking about something else which is already dead :)
>
> Given that the only thing BASIC languages have in common is the file
> extension, we could have the same.

If the BAS extension is known today I would say it was due to Microsoft and
the vast number of MS BASIC users, current and past.

> We can't be dead, because we don't even exist. It would be a great progress
> if someone sees dinges.4th and asks himself "I wonder what that *Forth* file
> is doing in /tmp"

or ... "Forth?  Never heard of it or seen apps written in it - can't be any good."

Forth's image problems are many.  If ANS couldn't turn the tide, it's unlikely
that a file extension will.

Seeing people writing useful Forth apps is the only thing that would cause me
sit up and take note.  My web page gets an absurd number of hits considering
its content.  I can't say for sure but I suspect it's due to KCS - a retro-computing
app which has apparently become popular, even turning up on YouTube.  One
can't buy advertising like that - not that promotion of Forth was ever my intent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26991

In article <l73io1$5d8$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ed <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <l6po0o$let$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Ed <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> >I see Forth as an 'unofficial language' - by which I mean it resists attempts
>> >to be categorized, controlled or standardized.  If you know what is Forth,
>> >then you are talking about something else which is already dead :)
>>
>> Given that the only thing BASIC languages have in common is the file
>> extension, we could have the same.
>
>If the BAS extension is known today I would say it was due to Microsoft and
>the vast number of MS BASIC users, current and past.
>
>> We can't be dead, because we don't even exist. It would be a great progress
>> if someone sees dinges.4th and asks himself "I wonder what that *Forth* file
>> is doing in /tmp"
>
>or ... "Forth?  Never heard of it or seen apps written in it - can't be
>any good."
>
>Forth's image problems are many.  If ANS couldn't turn the tide, it's unlikely
>that a file extension will.
>
>Seeing people writing useful Forth apps is the only thing that would cause me
>sit up and take note.  My web page gets an absurd number of hits considering
>its content.  I can't say for sure but I suspect it's due to KCS - a
>retro-computing
>app which has apparently become popular, even turning up on YouTube.  One
>can't buy advertising like that - not that promotion of Forth was ever
>my intent.

We're on the same page. Have you seen the remainder of my proposal about adding
standard rules to generate Forth binaries to the make system?

If you must be aware that an application has been written in Forth it is
not fit for wide distribution.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26918

In article <SNWdnR2x84_23RLPnZ2dnUVZ7tudnZ2d@bt.com>,
Mark <mark@dibsco.co.uk> wrote:
>"Lars Brinkhoff"  wrote in message news:85a9gwlx7u.fsf@junk.nocrew.org...
>>
>>Mark wrote:
>>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> > With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the de
>>> > facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is
>>> > important since Linux has attained world domination.
>>> Personally I have always quite liked .4th as being suitably
>>> descriptive and to the point.
>>
>>These Forth file extensions are used on GitHub, ordered from most
>>popular to least:
>>
>>1. fs
>>2. fth
>>3. f
>>4. 4th
>>5. fr
>>6. frt
>>7. forth
>>8. 4
>>
>>I have attempted to avoid false positives from e.g. F# files.
>
>Thanks for the list - very useful.
>
>It looks like I am going to have to make a decision regarding file
>extensions for the gedit syntax highlighter very soon. The developers are
>proposing that I drop all conflicting file extensions as a minimum and
>possibly consider picking just one.

I just opened a file in gedit called fpout17.f.
It thought it was FORTRAN, but it is very reasonable about extensions.
With view->highlightmode->sources I can select Forth.
That is as sensible a menu traversal as I've ever seen.

>
>Based on the above list .fs (FSharp) and .f (Fortran) would need to be
>dropped. A quick web search reveals that .fth is associated with FileMaker
>Pro, .fr is associated with movie capture files and .frt is associated with
>FoxPro report files. I realise that these aren't necessarily going to be a
>problem for a programmers text editor, but they do appear to be primarily
>recognised as things other than Forth source.

We can hardly contest that .fs and .f are properly mapped.
To me FoxPro is obscure, as is Filemaker.

>
>A search on filext.com shoes that .4th is primarily associated with Forth
>source.
>
>The adoption of .4th and .forth seems to make a great deal of sense to me.

Me too. Fortunately I'm hacky about source control.
I'll just make symbolic links from euler344.frt,v to euler344.4th,v
if this pans out.

>
>Regards
>
>Mark
>
>

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26922

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:31:47 -0500, Albert van der Horst  
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In article <SNWdnR2x84_23RLPnZ2dnUVZ7tudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Mark <mark@dibsco.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Lars Brinkhoff"  wrote in message  
>> news:85a9gwlx7u.fsf@junk.nocrew.org...
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>> Albert van der Horst wrote:

>>>> > With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the de
>>>> > facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is
>>>> > important since Linux has attained world domination.
>>>> Personally I have always quite liked .4th as being suitably
>>>> descriptive and to the point.
>>>
>>> These Forth file extensions are used on GitHub, ordered from most
>>> popular to least:
>>>
>>> 1. fs
>>> 2. fth
>>> 3. f
>>> 4. 4th
>>> 5. fr
>>> 6. frt
>>> 7. forth
>>> 8. 4
>>>
>>
>> The adoption of .4th and .forth seems to make a great deal
>> of sense to me.
>
> Me too. Fortunately I'm hacky about source control.
> I'll just make symbolic links from euler344.frt,v
> to euler344.4th,v if this pans out.
>

You guys could also checked Wotsit's to make sure your choices
are not in use:

http://www.wotsit.org/list.asp?al=F

I bet a bunch of you forgot about Wotsit's...

You could also check Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME_type

Some of you will notice the second link is for MIME types...
I think it would be good to not collide on those as well.

I would think the main priority, if there are no extension
collisions above, is to prevent choosing an extension that
Microsoft will use someday, or perhaps Google.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26906

Notepad++ (a free program for windows) also does syntax highlighting.

See http://turboforth.net/images/notepad.png

I've turned most of the colours off, I use it mainly for the code folding. I've configured it to (optionally) fold up things like colon definitions, and loops within colon definitions. See screenshot link above.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27563

"Albert van der Horst"  wrote in message 
news:528e0962$0$26909$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl...
>
>Here is what I'm gonna do (unless you guys protest heavily).
>
>1. Add Forth language detection to ctags on the .frt extensions.
>(ctags is flexible, you can remap to other extensions if you're happy
>with using ctags, but want to used .fs).
>With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the
>de facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is
>important since Linux has attained world domination.
>
>2. With the leverage resulting from 1, I'm gonna claim the
>extension .frt also in the makefile system.

I was just wondering whether you have got any further with this?

I have decided to support .4th and .forth as file extensions. This is partly 
due to personal preference and partly due to the fact the that gtksourceview 
maintainers didn't want my gedit syntax highlighter to support 6 different 
file extensions including those that clash with other languages.

I have taken some steps to try and improve the recognition of the .4th and 
.forth extensions as Forth source code by requesting database updates at the 
following sites:

www.file-extensions.org
www.fileinfo.com
www.filedesc.com (needs a further update as they have been linked to 
Gforth).
fileext.com (.forth extension still needs updating)

At the moment these two extensions appear to be unique to Forth source code 
(at least as far as I am aware).

I have been considering creating a MIME database entry for these two 
extensions for the 'shared-mime-info' package that is currently used by 
Gnome, KDE and others. This would mean that .forth and .4th files would be 
recognised as Forth source and would (hopefully) open automatically with at 
least a text editor. Thoughts?

Regards

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27566

In article <R-adnazpf-_iaF_PnZ2dnUVZ7q-dnZ2d@bt.com>,
Mark <mark@dibsco.co.uk> wrote:
>"Albert van der Horst"  wrote in message
>news:528e0962$0$26909$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>Here is what I'm gonna do (unless you guys protest heavily).
>>
>>1. Add Forth language detection to ctags on the .frt extensions.
>>(ctags is flexible, you can remap to other extensions if you're happy
>>with using ctags, but want to used .fs).
>>With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the
>>de facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is
>>important since Linux has attained world domination.
>>
>>2. With the leverage resulting from 1, I'm gonna claim the
>>extension .frt also in the makefile system.
>
>I was just wondering whether you have got any further with this?
>
>I have decided to support .4th and .forth as file extensions. This is partly
>due to personal preference and partly due to the fact the that gtksourceview
>maintainers didn't want my gedit syntax highlighter to support 6 different
>file extensions including those that clash with other languages.

My preliminary conclusion is that 4th is the best extension to make most
official. It will not be contested. .fs is unfortunate.
.frt can possibly be claimed, because the FORTRANners seem to have
abandoned it. .frt has some traction because it is known by gvim.
(Would like that as .frt is what I use, and is very common in the
Netherlands.)

>
>I have taken some steps to try and improve the recognition of the .4th and
>.forth extensions as Forth source code by requesting database updates at the
>following sites:
>
>www.file-extensions.org
>www.fileinfo.com
>www.filedesc.com (needs a further update as they have been linked to
>Gforth).
>fileext.com (.forth extension still needs updating)

Nice work.

>
>At the moment these two extensions appear to be unique to Forth source code
>(at least as far as I am aware).
>
>I have been considering creating a MIME database entry for these two
>extensions for the 'shared-mime-info' package that is currently used by
>Gnome, KDE and others. This would mean that .forth and .4th files would be
>recognised as Forth source and would (hopefully) open automatically with at
>least a text editor. Thoughts?

Very good, but that should probably have the support of the gforth,
as the closest thing to the official Linux forth.

I've come slowly to the realize why gforth has two extensions.
We are about the only language with sources that are compiled
*and* interpreted. I personally would say that a script has to
be made executable, while a source would generate a binary executable.
That wouldn't work on windows, where the extension determines what
has to be done.

For the moment the language aspect is most important, so high lighters,
tag analysers, etc. Let's get that right first.
>
>Regards
>
>Mark
>
>
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27567

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
> My preliminary conclusion is that 4th is the best extension to make most
> official. It will not be contested. .fs is unfortunate.

You mean because of F-sharp?  Hmm.  Emacs recognizes .fs and gforth uses
it, probably for longer than F-sharp has been around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27576

In article <7xfvp87h1f.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>> My preliminary conclusion is that 4th is the best extension to make most
>> official. It will not be contested. .fs is unfortunate.
>
>You mean because of F-sharp?  Hmm.  Emacs recognizes .fs and gforth uses
>it, probably for longer than F-sharp has been around.

That is reassuring, but can we hold our own against a propaganda budget of
$ 1,000,000,000 per annum?

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27595

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>In article <7xfvp87h1f.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
>Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>>> My preliminary conclusion is that 4th is the best extension to make most
>>> official. It will not be contested. .fs is unfortunate.
>>
>>You mean because of F-sharp?  Hmm.  Emacs recognizes .fs and gforth uses
>>it, probably for longer than F-sharp has been around.
>
>That is reassuring, but can we hold our own against a propaganda budget of
>$ 1,000,000,000 per annum?

I very much doubt that MS supports F# with $1G/year of propaganda
budget, if they have any marketing budget for it at all (and .fs
instead of .f# as file extension is embarrassing IMO; a badly-chosen
language name collides with a constrained file system (admittedly, .f#
would not work nicely in Unix, either, even though the file systems is
capable of dealing with such names).

We will see how long F# will be around, it might just be a flash in
the pan.  And the next flash-in-the-pan might use .4th or .frt or .fth
whatever your favourite file extension is.  Will you then call it
"unfortunate" and abandon it?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27604

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> (and .fs instead of .f# as file extension is embarrassing IMO; a
> badly-chosen language name collides with a constrained file system

Did I ever mention my (imagined) Haskell dialect for microcontrollers?
It's called Control-H and the file extension is a backspace character ;-).

> the pan.  And the next flash-in-the-pan might use .4th or .frt or .fth

I really don't like .frt, which always makes me think of "fart".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27613

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:03:56 -0500, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>  
wrote:
> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:

>> the pan.  And the next flash-in-the-pan might use .4th or .frt or .fth
>
> I really don't like .frt, which always makes me think of "fart".

.frt makes me think of "fort", and .fth makes me think of "fifth" ...

Do you really think 3 letters is going to be representative?


RP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27619

On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:03:56 PM UTC, Paul Rubin wrote:
> I really don't like .frt, which always makes me think of "fart".

I got one. .dup

as in filename.dup

It's obvious!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27612

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:46:54 -0500, Anton Ertl  
<anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> We will see how long F# will be around, it might just be a flash in
> the pan.  And the next flash-in-the-pan might use .4th or .frt or .fth
> whatever your favourite file extension is.  Will you then call it
> "unfortunate" and abandon it?
>

Not that anyone really cares, but...

FYI, I prefer 3 character file name extensions.

FYI, I don't like numbers and symbols in extensions.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web