On Jun 11, 2004, at 10:23 AM, Neil Stevens wrote:

> Karl von Laudermann wrote:
>
>> ... we could start using .ruby in new projects.
>
> What stops you from doing so now?

Well, it's not just a convention. it's built-in. Try requiring 'foo' 
when the file is named foo.rb.

FWIW, I see no reason not to support this, as long as it's an alternate 
extension. Having a file named foo.ruby is at least as easy to 
recognize as foo.rb.

> You're sure never going to get me to start mangling my script names 
> that
> way.  I leave script names unadorned, in case I ever wish to change the
> implementation.  This already paid off with shell scripts that I moved 
> to
> ruby. :-)

Same here :)  But I think OP was talking about libraries/included code.

> -- 
> Neil Stevens - neil @hakubi.us
> "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who
> are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
>                                                  -- Albert Einstein(?)

"I should have been a plumber." -- Albert Einstein :)