On 8/20/15, 11:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> Interesting, I thought you didn’t want it to start with “js" and that it >should start with “as” instead given the input is “as”. >> So the pattern there is "<input><output>c" > >The most important point for me is including "as" or "mxml" in the name, >which isn't there right now. The order of the input and output formats can >be debated, I guess. > >I feel that the input language should be immediately before the "c". If >jsasc doesn't look like it's in the correct order to some people, then I >propose ascjs so that the "as" and the "c" are not split apart (or >mxmlcjs). > >Ultimately, though, I'd be willing to accept asjsc or mxmljsc, if everyone >thinks that's better. All I strongly care about is that "as" or "mxml" >appears in the name. OK, so the choices are: ascjs mxmlcjs Or: asjsc mxmljsc Or even: as-jsc mxml-jsc asc-js mxmlc-js as2jsc mxml2jsc I think I’d pick from one of the first two. The ‘-' looks funny to me and the ‘2’ could be thought of as a language version instead of the word ’to’. What do others think? -Alex
