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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
