> (Note that I'd even make a difference: where the implementation matters,
> e.g. some shell code to be sourced in, I'd be more lenient in calling
> the thing ".sh": after all, its users rely on it being shell code. When
> you can change the implementation without changing the function, e.g.
> a shell script/executable -- I am decidedly against slapping a suffix
> on the name.
I think what you're saying is that it would make sense to use
a dedicated extension for executables, like, say, `.exe`,
since "all users rely on it being" executable.
FWIW, I agree, but this ship sailed a long time ago.
Stefan "who likes types"
