Re: what to do with `namespace-pollution'
>>>>> "MB" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
MB: There is no need to keep a silly choosen upstream name. We
MB: change a lot of things defined upstream (file location, etc),
MB: and I don't think that changing a name from "B" to something
MB: more readable is confusing (the opposite is the case).
File location is no problem, most users don't care about it. Moreover,
they expect e.g. documentation in certain directories on Debian
systems. On the other hand they want to run the program by the same
command on all systems. Moreover, makefiles, shell scripts, etc., may
have problems, if the binary has different name on each computer.
MB: Beside the reason you gave above, consider that a short name
MB: gives *no* idea about the functionality.
That's not true--`pl' (the main SWI Prolog binary name) is also the
extension of Prolog source files (do not confuse this with the fact that
Perl bigots chose already used extension for their source files) coming
from ProLog. So it is clear for every Prolog programmer that binary
`pl' has to do something with Prolog.
I repeat it again: I don't think it's a good idea to have few letters
binaries, but I would rename already existing user programs only if some
conflict arised.
Milan Zamazal
--
"Having GNU Emacs is like having a dragon's cave of treasures."
Robert J. Chassell
Reply to: