bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE : Re: Files from gnulib


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: RE : Re: Files from gnulib
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:48:40 +0200

> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  
> address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:32:27 +0100
> 
> Not being able to use a preferred file name due to the archaic 8.3
> naming limitations is onerous, even if someone else handles the
> renaming task.  Just because it's a cost incurred mostly by you
> doesn't diminish the fact that it's a cost.

"What's in a name?"  How is unistd.in.h substantially different from
unistd-in.h or some such, that preferring one over the other is a
"cost"?

> I'm in the habit of avoiding problems with "old code"
> and old processes, and I place great value on "code cleanliness".

What is not "clean" in unistd-in.h?

> When I see effort being expended in an attempt to work around DOS 8.3
> name collisions, my "oh, no, not that again" reflex kicks in and I can't
> resist the urge to hype an approach that may relieve you and others of
> the trouble of worrying about 8.3 ever again.

How about honoring a small request of a veteran Emacs hacker?  Does
that have any weight in this discussion?  It's certainly not less
important than the knee-jerk reaction on behalf of 8.3.

You are talking about costs?  How about _my_ costs -- the need to
endure these endless "why-don't-you-go-away-with-your-stupid-DOS"
discussions?  Here's Miles again, asking his perennial "how many users
are there", here's Leo inventing "loads of weird files" that somehow
are the fault of supporting the DOS port, here's Ulrich Mueller
reminding me that I asked for eliminating file-name clashes in
CEDET (in Oct 2009!)...

How do you think I feel after all this hazing I need to go through,
because of a simple request?  What do you think this does to my
motivation to continue development of the bidirectional editing
support for a community that treats me like that?  So I have a weak
spot, so what? who doesn't?  Why everybody and their dog here feel a
need to probe that spot with a pique?

> Isn't it almost always better to do a little more work now, when
> that will save lots of tedious, manual work later?

It is, but no one yet suggested such a magic way of solving this.  All
of the alternatives proposed until now mean more work, which is more
tedious and more manual than a simple one-time rename.

> Obviously building for DOS is worthwhile.
> There's no need to stop that.

If others cannot build it reliably and seamlessly, then there's no
incentive for me to continue maintaining this port.  Is that the
intent here -- to make this progressively harder and harder for me,
until I give up and go away?

> Portability is great.  For all I know, there may be many DOS-only emacs
> users and developers.  But portability is even better when archaic
> constraints do not impede (not even slightly) development for more
> modern systems.

There's no impediment.  File names can continue being long and
descriptive, they just should be different either in the first 8
characters before the dot or the first 3 characters after the dot.
That's it.  All that's needed is a few seconds of thought when
selecting a file name.  It's not like this is the only restriction we
need to cope with when naming files.  The only "impediment" here is
that knee-jerk irrational reaction.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]