Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

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.