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

Re: policy should frown on programs in PATH with language extentions (ie, .pl)

Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:03:44PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I would personnally be fine with only:
> > 
> >     When scripts are installed into into a directory in the system PATH,
> >     the script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl
> >     that denotes the scripting language currently used to implement it.
> > 
> > but I can easily be persuaded otherwise.
> I'd like a "just" or "simply" before the "denotes", otherwise
> we'll get cheeky people arguing that naming a perl script "doit.sh"
> is just fine :)

I don't think either suggested word would restrain such a wise-alec, and
it's probably not worth bloating policy with an airtight definition.
Commen sense should serve.. (But then, if it did, I'd maybe not be
proposing this..)

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpYRvqx3JGR5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: