Re: renamings to remove extensions
On Tue, Sep 29 2009, George Danchev wrote:
> I've also read people claiming that preserving extensions could
> actually help evolving and migrations in the future and it is as
> simple as app.lang1 being rewritten as app.lang2, both stay on board
> as needed or for a reasonable amount of time, then at some point
> app.lang1 could actually be changed to just call app.lang2 when it's
> considered mature enough. That is absolutely fine with me as long as
> app.* are kept in reasonable amount of disk space, but scripts usually
> don't tend to become that large. (even small sizes could not be that
> practical for embedded when doubled, but that is another story).
Since it is being claimed that the script name is an
"interface" that other software uses, then basic encapsulation 101 says
that one should maintain the interface, but not rely on implementation
(which, in the case of scripts, includes the language the script is
implemented in).
manoj
--
But Officer, I stopped for the last one, and it was green!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: