As much as I hate hyphens, to me we are dealing with a cross compiler from one language to anther.
I would vote for; as-jsc mxml-jsc read as ActionScript To JavaScript compiler MXML To JavaScript compiler Mike On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >
