On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:47:57 +0300 Stayvoid <stayv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, for patches it's convenient to have the file attached. > OK. > > > .py to the file name? I'd argue against it. > I strongly disagree. > "The filename extension was originally used to easily determine the > file's generic type." [1] > Imagine a system without extensions. It will be such a mess! This is what mime is for. When it comes to your office documents, sure, stick an extension on them. This is a program, an executable, the same rules don't apply. > > The person running the software doesn't need to care (or know) what > > its written in. > It's usually better to provide more information. > .py is more informative that just "a file." Usually better? eg? > I've looked through some projects written in Python. [2, 3, 4] All of > them have the extension for the source code. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension > [2] https://github.com/pybrain/pybrain > [3] https://github.com/scipy/scipy > [4] https://github.com/numpy/numpy 08:41:31 kgoetz@epicfail: /tmp $ dpkg -L python-numpy |grep bin /usr/bin /usr/bin/f2py2.5 /usr/bin/f2py2.6 /usr/bin/dh_numpy /usr/bin/f2py User facing software does not have extensions. (FTR, In debian this is policy 10.4, a should directive) thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS) http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
