Re: Image handling in mutt
songbird <songbird@anthive.com> wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:28:20PM -0500, songbird wrote:
> >> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
> there is rarely a need to e-mail me directly.
>
> >> ...
> >> > That's why I cringe when people name executables "foo.sh". What
> >> > do you do when you decide to rewrite the thing in C (or Rust, or
> >> > whatever)?
> >> >
> >> > Do you go over all calling sites and change the caller's code?
> >>
> >> no, i would just consider it a transition or a change
> >> in versions. :)
> >
> > Again. You have one script, say /usr/local/bin/ring-the-bells.sh
> > You use it in several other scripts. If you now re-implement it
> > in your favourite Pascal as ring-the-bells.pas or something, you
> > go over all your executables and fix that?
> >
> > IMO an executable name should indicate /what/ an executable does,
> > not /how/.
>
> i'm fine with that, but i'm also capable enough to know
> how to search through a code base to find all the strings
> i might need to change.
You make the anti-heroic assumption that your code is never used
outside of your control (or specifically, outside of your code base).
> i just scanned a few of my projects and noted i do not
> use the .sh extension much at all for the binaries/executables,
> but parts of the code may have that extension.
That's a fine choice, as long as none of the internals will be exposed
externally, IMHO. Though I confess I do often add a .pl extension to
filenames :(
PS I suspect tomas sent mail to you for the same reason I nearly did,
namely that you or your mailer explicitly asked for it with a reply-to
header. Certainly my claws MUA interprets that as meaning you want a
copy too.
Reply to: