Vadim V. Zhytnikov wrote:
>
> Richard Fateman wrote:
>
>
>>There are a few suffixes that make sense though I don't know what
>>the ones above mean, entirely. Some of them seem to come from
>>shortening 3 or 4 letter suffixes to 2 for purposes of storing with
>>weak file systems.
>>Here is what comes to my mind
>>.cl for a file that is in common lisp. Thus .lsp, .lisp, .l
>> could be changed to .cl . Advantages: common usage, I think
>> and only 2 letters. Does anyone else use this?
>>
>
> Personally I like .cl for Maxima's Common Lisp code. But Common Lisp
> has a large heritage. Hundreds of programs are written in
> Common Lisp. Is .cl really in use among CL programs? If not then
> changing .lisp -> .cl might be misleading.
The Allegro common lisp that I use seems to think that if you
say (load "foo") it should look for files
foo
foo.cl
foo.lsp
foo.lisp
so there is no univeral standard. I personally use .cl,
and I think that Franz Inc uses .cl as well..
but common lisp can be set up to check out lots of suffixes.
>