Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary
- From
Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
- Date
- Sep 5, 2005, 00:54 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200509050054.j850sC3D023778@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl>
- In-Reply-To
- <junkio@cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> writes: > >> 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'. > >> > >> In earlier discussions some people seem to like the > >> distinction between *-script and others; I did not > >> particularly like it, but I am throwing this in for > >> discussion.
> > I for one think this makes the command name dependent on a non-essential > > implementation detail, so -script should go.
> I had the same opinion. The counter-argument people raised when > this topic came up on the list was that it would help grepping > in the source tree.
Grepping for what?
It is not /that/ much more expensive to run file(1) over the tree if you want to know what is a script and what isn't. Furthermore, the "-script" extension doesn't work for this as of today (see your own message a while back ;-). Keeping it requires discipline that tools don't help enforcing today (and the extension use itself is very un-Unix-like), so further "mistakes" /will/ happen.
In any case, this would be for a very specialized, developer-only, occasional task. I don't see how that warrants a fractured tool namespace for /all/ users /all/ the time.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513