[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?
From: |
David A. Wheeler |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate? |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:49:17 GMT |
I've received several replies about my filename convention
concerns. Here's an example:
> ... how often will you really want to do operations
> involving {arch} etc. within your shell?
Not often. But to be fair, I do say that in my review,
which says "And although this is less of a problem..."
when I talk about the {} characters in the name {arch}.
However, the leading = and + characters are critical
for defining file categories. Yes, you can change them,
but it's always important to pick easy-to-use defaults.
It would be very confusing if you had to work with 5
different arch projects, and they all used extremely
different conventions. It's the leading "+" and "="
that drive me bonkers, especially the "+". Leading "+"
as an option is actually a very old Unix and pre-Unix
convention (Multics perhaps?), and MANY tools use it
(including vi, vim, more, and several others).
Just look at arch itself. It's filled with
leading "=" (=README, etc.) filenames. The
leading + character is critical for the logging file
(and that can't even be configured).
I'm just arguing to consider a different convention
(perhaps leading ^ instead of +), so that arch
will work more smoothly with common tools like vim.
Between the two characters, I see the leading +
character as the more important one.
Leading = is more immediately annoying (due to
a bash bug), but that's a bug in one tool
that will be fixed. The leading + character is a
longer-range problem, since there's NO reason to
believe that the various tools like vim and more
will change to make arch happy.
They were there first :-).
--- David A. Wheeler
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Jan Hudec, 2004/03/13
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Miles Bader, 2004/03/12
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Jani Monoses, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Tom Lord, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/13
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David Brown, 2004/03/13
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, David A. Wheeler, 2004/03/10
RE: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?, Parker, Ron, 2004/03/10
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?,
David A. Wheeler <=