Re: First ever IRC meeting has finished
> On 27 Apr 2008 at 19:10, Jeremy Cowgar wrote (maybe snipped):
> posted by: Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowgar.c??>
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > Nothing, except that it is more complicated than the status quo and
> > my own proposal. Euphoria doesn't need a different program extension
> > for every combination of OS and console/gui application type and
> > whether a given file is an include or an executable.
> >
> > Let's not regress twenty-plus years here.
>
> But you said that .ex will link to the DOS interpreter, therefore,
> it's not cross platform?
>
> Maybe before we go down this route further, what does ex.exe do that
> exwc.exe does not? Anything?
>
> My point on IRC was that the file extensions are way to numerous. For
> instance, ruby, python, lua... they do not have different extensions
> for every platform they run on. And that's further agervated by the
> current scheme that we have no true cross-platform extension.
>
> So... Is it possible to do everything that ex.exe does with exwc.exe?
> Therefore, linking .ex to run Dos, Windows and Linux apps would work
> just fine if .ex was run by exwc.exe?
>
> Therefore, no need for exu or exw even.
>
Jeremy and others,
Extension is a Windows (DOS) thing. It's how the OS relates actions
to files. If I got the right idea from Rob Craig (in Refman),
Euphoria is totally independent from extensions. You can run .e, .ex,
.exw, .exu, .nothing, whatever, in any OS. So, running the code is
not a problem. BUT, if you want to run-on-click (e.g. on Windows),
set an icon, etc., you'll need to make the proper action attribution
to a proper extension.
Once I built an installer package for Euphoria that put things just
like the following:
Ext | Description | Dbl-click | Icon (3) | Comments
-----+---------------------+-------------+-----------+---------------
.e | Eu DOS32 library | ed.bat %1 | greyscale |
.ex | Eu DOS32 executable | exwc.exe %1 | colourful | ex.exe (1)
.ew | Eu Win32 library | ed.bat %1 | greyscale |
.exw | Eu Win32 executable | exw.exe %1 | colourful |
.eu | Eu Unix library | ed.bat %1 | greyscale |
.exu | Eu Unix executable | ed.bat %1 | greyscale | ex/exw.exe (2)
=====================================================================
(1) My choice of exwc.exe instead of ex.exe is just because it was
planned to run *under* Windows, not DOS. Installers are ALSO a
Windows thing, IMHO. ;)
(2) I thought I shouldn't run a Linux program under Windows, but this
shouldn't prevent me to edit them. So, both .eu and .exu will invoke
the editor.
(3) A greyscale Euphoria icon was used to point the libraries, while
a colorful icon to executable code. As said already, this is just a
convention, nothing is mandatory, but it's somewhat essential if you
will do things in an environment like Windows.
While I don't care if extensions will/should be deprecated or
extended I'll continue do things the same way, that is:
Libraries
---------
.e Generic code that can be used on any (or more than one) platform;
.ew Windows specific library. Can't be used on any other platform,
otherwise use .e;
.eu Linux/FreeBSD specific library. Can't be used on any other
platform, otherwise use .e;
Executables
-----------
.ex Generic executable that can be used on any (or more than one)
platform, e.g. DOS32 (ex.exe), or Windows console (exwc.exe), or
Linux/FreeBSD console (exu.exe);
.exwWindows specific executable. Can't be run on any other platform,
otherwise use .ex;
.exuLinux/FreeBSD specific executable. Can't be run on any other
platform, otherwise use .ex.
Just to clarify, if you write a piece of code to run on a website
hosted in a FreeBSD server that could also run on a Windows server,
use something like MyCode.ex, otherwise use MyCode.exu (or MyCode.exw
contrariwise).
Better stop now. I tend to nonsense when I *talk* too much. ;)
Best,
Euler
--
_
_| euler f german
_| sete lagoas, mg, brazil
_| efgerman{AT}gmail{DOT}com
_| -----------------------------
_| Reply preferably to the list,
_| or to the address above. Thx!
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
