On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 08:52:37AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 10 Dec 2023 at 15:51:02 (-0500), Pocket wrote: [...] > > File names in Linux are a character string of 255 chars. Again there are not file extensions in a Linux file name. > > > > People are conflating the issue. > > > > Read the code, code good. > > So you've said five or six times already. The trouble is that it's > difficult to square this with documentation not only of the OS in > the widest sense, but also the linux kernel itself, which uses the > term extension. :-) I'd tend to the maxim "all generalizations suck". I do agree that encoding file type in the file name is an antipattern (and tend to avoid that whenever possible). That said, it's true that there are more than enough user space applications (and as you showed, even kernel space ones) where that antipattern crept in. I think it's there to stay. But it is good to put some counterpressure. (Note that I'd even make a difference: where the implementation matters, e.g. some shell code to be sourced in, I'd be more lenient in calling the thing ".sh": after all, its users rely on it being shell code. When you can change the implementation without changing the function, e.g. a shell script/executable -- I am decidedly against slapping a suffix on the name. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature