On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
> Well I'm not sure if that might be of interest to more here. But what
> about sbfasl as extension? That should not clash with anything, is
> there still anyone else using SBCL and Franz Common Lisp?
While I think *default-fasl-type* might well reside in SB-EXT, I think
"fasl" is good as the initial value as it exposes problems with fasl
setups for multiple architectures and implementations, and trying to guess
a unique extension for fasls really isn't one IMO.
If something else was to be used, I'd personally prefer "sb-<arch>", as
that would at least give a nod to the issue of using same $HOME on
Actually, CMUCL has "x86f", "sparcf", etc -- this feature was dropped from
SBCL at 0.pre7.28. Probably for a reason...
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."