Re: file format extensions

[Ralph Mellor]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:20 AM Richard Hainsworth
 wrote:
>
> It seems to me a short page in the docs.raku.org would
> be useful with the various file extensions

I'm +1 for this.

I'm also +1 for recommending `.rakudoc` instead of `.pod6`.
At least, for documentation files related to raku; what I mean
by that caveat will become clear if you consider Pod6Lite, as
discussed in the reddit comment I link below.

> I think that POD6 is neither Plain, nor Old. How about RDM?

Please read this related reddit comment (and, optionally, the
earlier reddit comment it then links to):

https://www.reddit.com/r/rakulang/comments/qwqpag/
podlite_ver_020_autocomplete_and_pod6_snippets/hlzbtfq/

(This latest reddit comment was written in the context of discussing
Pod6Lite's name, but it's mostly about Raku's use of Pod6, not Pod6Lite's.)

As you'll see, I propose we suitably backronym "Pod". In other
words, stick with "Pod", but switch to new words for the P, o, and d.

And I strawman propose "Package of docks" for reasons that will
become apparent if you read the reddit comment(s) I've linked.

--
love, raiph

Re: file format extensions

[Vadim Belman]

rakudoc has been chosen as the official extension long ago.

Best regards,
Vadim Belman

> On Dec 30, 2021, at 11:13 AM, Tom Browder  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:26 Elizabeth Mattijsen  > wrote:
> +1 from me.  Shouldn't that be a .rakudoc file ?  :-)
> 
> Or .rakupod?

Re: file format extensions

[Tom Browder]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:26 Elizabeth Mattijsen  wrote:

> +1 from me.  Shouldn't that be a .rakudoc file ?  :-)


Or .rakupod?

Re: file format extensions

[Daniel Sockwell]

+1 from me too.  I'd also add test files to the list, which have at least .t 
and .rakutest 
(with the latter being preferred AFAK, so that GitHub will start highlighting 
them correctly).
I'm not sure if there are other acceptable extensions for test files, though?

Re: file format extensions

[Vadim Belman]

I also agree that a page on docs would be helpful. But my point for this reply 
is about renaming POD6. I don't think this makes much sense and barely would 
ever happen. It is a legacy name, like NQP. 

Best regards,
Vadim Belman

> On Dec 30, 2021, at 6:26 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen  wrote:
> 
> +1 from me.  Shouldn't that be a .rakudoc file ?  :-)
> 
>> On 30 Dec 2021, at 12:20, Richard Hainsworth  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm revising how I name files that are included in my modules. With the name 
>> change to Raku, the file extensions also changed for script and module files.
>> 
>> In addition Jonathan has defined some format extensions for Cro files, and I 
>> am sure there would be other developers who would like to claim unique 
>> extension names for files.
>> 
>> This is not a post intended to start a war about file extensions, that is 
>> whether they should exist in a modern file system. For whatever reason they 
>> came into being, a significant number of users, such as myself, find them 
>> useful, if only as a mnemonic for their files' probable contents.
>> 
>> It seems to me a short page in the docs.raku.org would be useful with the 
>> various file extensions, and so if a developer wanted for a custom file 
>> extension to be primarily applied to some new module, the way to do would be 
>> to create a PR on the documentation file.
>> 
>> If this post gets some positive responses, then I'll write the POD6 file for 
>> inclusion in docs.raku.org and create a PR for inclusion.
>> 
>> [Another naming question would be the name of the markup language - as 
>> distinct from the file extension - for documentation. For Perl it is POD, 
>> for Perl6 it was natural to use POD6. POD stands for Plain Old 
>> Documentation, but I think that POD6 is neither Plain, nor Old. How about 
>> RDM for Raku documentation markup? ]
>> 
>> There is a wrinkle in that Raku best practice has evolved in line with the 
>> evolution of perl6 into Raku. So it seems reasonable to have previous file 
>> formats listed as well.
>> 
>> The following are what I think are the current best practices. Since I have 
>> been out of circulation for a while, the list is likely not exhaustive and 
>> may be wrong. I am certain there are other file types I have not included.
>> 
>> For each file type, extensions on the left are earlier, and the extension of 
>> the far right (after the TAB) is considered best practice
>> 
>> Perl6 / Raku script: .pl, .pl6,  .raku
>> 
>> Perl6 / Raku Module: .pm, .pm6,  .rakumod
>> 
>> Perl6 / Raku Standalone Documentation (POD6 can be included in a script or 
>> module file): .pm, .pm6, .pod, .pod6,  .rakudoc
>> 
>> NQP file:  .nqp
>> 
>> Cro template:  .crotmp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: file format extensions

[Elizabeth Mattijsen]

+1 from me.  Shouldn't that be a .rakudoc file ?  :-)

> On 30 Dec 2021, at 12:20, Richard Hainsworth  wrote:
> 
> I'm revising how I name files that are included in my modules. With the name 
> change to Raku, the file extensions also changed for script and module files.
> 
> In addition Jonathan has defined some format extensions for Cro files, and I 
> am sure there would be other developers who would like to claim unique 
> extension names for files.
> 
> This is not a post intended to start a war about file extensions, that is 
> whether they should exist in a modern file system. For whatever reason they 
> came into being, a significant number of users, such as myself, find them 
> useful, if only as a mnemonic for their files' probable contents.
> 
> It seems to me a short page in the docs.raku.org would be useful with the 
> various file extensions, and so if a developer wanted for a custom file 
> extension to be primarily applied to some new module, the way to do would be 
> to create a PR on the documentation file.
> 
> If this post gets some positive responses, then I'll write the POD6 file for 
> inclusion in docs.raku.org and create a PR for inclusion.
> 
> [Another naming question would be the name of the markup language - as 
> distinct from the file extension - for documentation. For Perl it is POD, for 
> Perl6 it was natural to use POD6. POD stands for Plain Old Documentation, but 
> I think that POD6 is neither Plain, nor Old. How about RDM for Raku 
> documentation markup? ]
> 
> There is a wrinkle in that Raku best practice has evolved in line with the 
> evolution of perl6 into Raku. So it seems reasonable to have previous file 
> formats listed as well.
> 
> The following are what I think are the current best practices. Since I have 
> been out of circulation for a while, the list is likely not exhaustive and 
> may be wrong. I am certain there are other file types I have not included.
> 
> For each file type, extensions on the left are earlier, and the extension of 
> the far right (after the TAB) is considered best practice
> 
> Perl6 / Raku script: .pl, .pl6,  .raku
> 
> Perl6 / Raku Module: .pm, .pm6,  .rakumod
> 
> Perl6 / Raku Standalone Documentation (POD6 can be included in a script or 
> module file): .pm, .pm6, .pod, .pod6,  .rakudoc
> 
> NQP file:  .nqp
> 
> Cro template:  .crotmp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

file format extensions

[Richard Hainsworth]

I'm revising how I name files that are included in my modules. With the 
name change to Raku, the file extensions also changed for script and 
module files.


In addition Jonathan has defined some format extensions for Cro files, 
and I am sure there would be other developers who would like to claim 
unique extension names for files.


This is not a post intended to start a war about file extensions, that 
is whether they should exist in a modern file system. For whatever 
reason they came into being, a significant number of users, such as 
myself, find them useful, if only as a mnemonic for their files' 
probable contents.


It seems to me a short page in the docs.raku.org would be useful with 
the various file extensions, and so if a developer wanted for a custom 
file extension to be primarily applied to some new module, the way to do 
would be to create a PR on the documentation file.


If this post gets some positive responses, then I'll write the POD6 file 
for inclusion in docs.raku.org and create a PR for inclusion.


[Another naming question would be the name of the markup language - as 
distinct from the file extension - for documentation. For Perl it is 
POD, for Perl6 it was natural to use POD6. POD stands for Plain Old 
Documentation, but I think that POD6 is neither Plain, nor Old. How 
about RDM for Raku documentation markup? ]


There is a wrinkle in that Raku best practice has evolved in line with 
the evolution of perl6 into Raku. So it seems reasonable to have 
previous file formats listed as well.


The following are what I think are the current best practices. Since I 
have been out of circulation for a while, the list is likely not 
exhaustive and may be wrong. I am certain there are other file types I 
have not included.


For each file type, extensions on the left are earlier, and the 
extension of the far right (after the TAB) is considered best practice


Perl6 / Raku script: .pl, .pl6,  .raku

Perl6 / Raku Module: .pm, .pm6,  .rakumod

Perl6 / Raku Standalone Documentation (POD6 can be included in a script 
or module file): .pm, .pm6, .pod, .pod6,  .rakudoc


NQP file:  .nqp

Cro template:  .crotmp