On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 00:23 -0400, Noah Lavine wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: > > > > > On Sat 18 May 2013 15:44, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > >> I have a very small question, based on something I think you said > > >> earlier - since the container will be ELF, will we call our files .so > > >> now? > > > > > > We certainly can. Is it a good idea though? > > > > I’d vote for keeping .go, or at least something different from > > commonly-used extensions like .so. > > > > I don't think it's a big deal, but the reason I asked was that I'm afraid > .go will become increasingly popular because of the Go language. .so also > sort of hints at native compilation in the future, although that's not a > very strong reason to choose it. >
How about .glc or .glo? But anyway, I don't think we should yield against a competitor. > Noah
