I find the idea of using a special filename extension rather appealing. A couple of notes:
(1) I'm not sure there is a "generic clojure". ClojureScript has a couple serious differences from Clojure, such as the way macros are included in (ns ...). (2) ClojureScript macro files, AFAICT, really are strictly Clojure files. So I think these would stay ".clj". (Unless I'm missing something?) -Evan On Jan 19, 12:55 am, Dave Sann <daves...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you are referring to (2), I agree. > > But marking the type of a file by either path or extension is not a hack, > in my opinion. (3) > I was suggesting that ideally this would be better. > > To justify this statement I would claim that: > jvm clj files - using java platform specifics > clr clj files - using .net platform specifics > generic clj files - using only clojure > cljs files - using browser platform specifics > (and even nodejs - using node platform specifics) > > (and a special case of cljs macros) > > are all different classes/types of clojure code. In the much the same way > that .java and .clj are different. > Different builds will use different files. > > The problem that these build tools (crossovers and so forth) are trying to > address is how to classify these so as to know whether to use or ignore > them - for a specific build. > > Dave -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
