Ryan Anderson [off-list ref] writes:
See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good.
Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next
time somebody rewrites it in C?
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ryan Anderson [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good.
Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next
time somebody rewrites it in C?
We'll call the C version "rename.c", and the program gets to be called
"git-rename", and "git rename" continues to work perfectly fine, so users
won't be affected in the least.
And "grep ... *.c" and "grep ... *-script" also still work right.
That sounds like a good outcome to me.
Linus
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 01:57:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ryan Anderson [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
See, for example, the history on git-rename-script for why this is good.
Why do you think it is a good example? What happens when next
time somebody rewrites it in C?
Well, I was really responding to the comment about "-script" being
better than ".sh", as trying ".sh", ".pl", ".php", etc, would rapidly
be annoying.
Honestly, I think the biggest argument against the "-script" suffix is
related to man-page usage: It requires significant knowledge of the Git
project to figure out what name variant to use to find the man page.
(There are other problems with man pages, but I'll address those
seperately now that they have occurred to me.)
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
Dear diary, on Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:25:12AM CEST, I got a letter
where Ryan Anderson [off-list ref] told me that...
Honestly, I think the biggest argument against the "-script" suffix is
related to man-page usage: It requires significant knowledge of the Git
project to figure out what name variant to use to find the man page.
.oO(Hey, tcl has own man section as well!)
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching
someone. -- Alan Cox