Re: github finally believes we exist
Paulo Moura <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.ai.prolog.swi |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Carlo, On 19/08/2013, at 11:35, Carlo Capelli <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe could be interesting to 'grab' the .lp extension, if it appears to be (still) free. > > Actually in SWI-prolog it's as easy as to put in ~/.plrc > > user:prolog_file_type(lp, prolog). > > and all seems to work appropriately. > No need to change any of the current code base... You may remember that we discussed extensions not long ago: https://lists.iai.uni-bonn.de/pipermail/swi-prolog/2013/010294.html I still think that ".prolog" is the best in the long term. Cheers, Paulo > 2013/8/19 Paulo Moura <[email protected]> > Hi Anne, > > On 19/08/2013, at 06:06, Anne Ogborn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Another small victory - Github now classifies prolog code correctly. They used to classify it as perl. > > That was been true for some time. But it seems that some projects need to be re-analysed for the language statistics to show up corrected. But identifying source files as Prolog source files is not always accurate. The software doing the job, linguist, still defines the Prolog bits as: > > Prolog: > type: programming > color: "#74283c" > primary_extension: .prolog > extensions: > - .pro > > Me and others tried to get .pl recognized as the de facto standard extension for Prolog source files but it was a lost battle. Thankfully, linguist (also) uses the actual contents of the files to try to infer the language used in a source file. Sometimes linguist guesses it wrong and you can find e.g. people also complaining that suddenly that have become Prolog programmers :-) > > Cheers, > > Paulo ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paulo Moura Logtalk developer Email: <mailto:[email protected]> Web: <http://logtalk.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------