[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:12:07 +0000

On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:36, David Ayers wrote:

<snipped lots of examples of scripts without a .sh>

I fear we would be starting a new convention by using .sh, but I'm sure
we would get more discussion on conventions if take this to address@hidden

I didn't mean to imply that use of a '.sh' suffix is in any way universal.

My point what that where '.sh' is used, it indicates that you have a shell script of some sort, not that you have a file which should be sourced.

If you use a search engine to look up something like ',sh file extension', I'm pretty sure you will quickly find a some places telling you that it denotes a shell script, and also pretty sure you won't easily find anything saying that a .sh extension denotes a file which should be sourced by a shell ... except perhaps this mailing list :-)

So a '.sh' extension is IMO fine for both purposes and required for neither.

What I want to forestall is the idea that we *should* start trying to enforce a new convention about using/not-using a .sh extension, when practically nobody else uses it and where there is a perfectly good convention (file permission) which already provides the distinction required.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]