On Jan 9, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:
so you can just use the native .so extension
Sorry, i forgot to mention it, but as stated in my original proposal (in December), platform-native shared library extensions (.so,.dll,.dylib) should be supported as well.
Why do we need to support the platform-specific shared lib formats? I think this will just add confusion for no real gain that I can see.
Still, to avoid name-clashes with system or third-party libraries having a pd-specific extension is important. .pdo doesn't sound too bad (.pdx and .pdb don't seem to be good, because ambigous choices)
Do we really need to use a 3 character extension? I mean how many people are really using DOS any more? .pd_darwin and .pd_linux have been working fine for a long time, Windows has no problem with .jpeg and .html for example.
.pdo is taken by Microsoft. It looks like basically all .pd? extensions are taken:
http://filext.com/alphalist.php?extstart=%5EP
We could make it technically correct (for single file objects at least) and use .pdclass. But .pdext seems acceptable.
.hc ________________________________________________________________________ ____
"Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is related to the telescope." -Edsger Dykstra