Re: underscores
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: underscores"):
> First I want to thank you for giving my the opportunity to speak on this
> subject :-)
...
> A: package-name_1.2.3-1_i386.deb
> B: package_name-1.2.3_1-i386.deb
> C: package_name_1_2_3_1_i386.deb
> D: package-name-1.2.3-1-i386.deb
>
> Now, for those of you who find anything at all attractive in C or D, let
> me just say that I have only included them as examples of what a failure
> to comply with either A or B would look like. More on that later.
>
> A and B are not identical, and though they may appear to have some symmetry
> about them, they impose different solutions to the same problem.
B, though you may prefer it, is not really an option because it
involves either renaming all the packages which currently use `-' or
doing a translation on the package name when it is placed in the
filename.
Renaming all the packages is *not* on (if you seriously question this
email me privately and I'll send you a copy of the explanation I used
to convince David).
Translating package names when they're put in filenames is just going
to confuse people - they'll type _ when they should type - one moment,
than then _ when they meant -, and there'll be *endless* questions and
complaints from users about it ...
We've heard your comments about `word characters' before; I don't
think that they're particularly interesting - any competent parser can
do just as well regardless of the delimiter.
We should be designing for the benefit of the humans who'll read the
filenames.
Ian.
Reply to: