"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3ba64c6e@news.povray.org...
> "Chris Cason" wrote:
> > I've already added .mcr since I believe it is
> > becoming fairly common.
>
> Sorry, but I think this is perhaps not such a good idea.
>
> If it is added there should be a definition of what it means; some kind of
> standardization. What if a file has both macros and other things, should
it
> then be an .inc or a .mcr ? And should .mcr mean one macro only, or could
it
> also contain several?
---snip---

Yet another extension for functions, .fun, could be feasible too.  But
seriously, I have to say that organization is paramount and if mcr helps in
that regard I'm all for it.  It's up to the end user to judge what goes in a
certain file type.
I probably shouldn't have mentioned a extension for designating function
calls or whatever.  It sounds feasible to me after saying that.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message