[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: {arch} directory
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: {arch} directory |
Date: |
24 Sep 2003 17:59:13 +0900 |
Dustin Sallings <address@hidden> writes:
> I have to imagine this has been discussed, but is there a good reason
> to keep the arch stuff in {arch} vs. something like .arch ? {arch} is
> a little difficult to deal with.
Why?
I was a bit bothered by {arch} at first, because it was unfamiliar, but
that didn't last long. On balance, it seems a pretty reasonable choice;
the funny format makes it unlikely to conflict with existing
files/directories, and it's otherwise fairly unobtrusive (more so than
all UPPERCASED names). I think it's actually a _good_ thing that it's
user-visible, because it tells you something important: `This source
directory is being handled by arch.'
The only really annoying thing is that it gets hit by recursive
finds/greps/whatever -- but so does every other in-directory solution
(CVS, .svn, etc).
I seem to recall there being other list discussions about the time I
joined, about using `more normal' names for the various arch special
files, and at the time I was sympathetic, but I think in retrospect,
it's better to keep things they way they are; Tom's conventions are
actually pretty good.
The only _real_ issues I can think of are:
(1) Some editors (vim) have problems with `+' prefixed filenames, which
is mainly a problem for editing log-files made with `tla make-log'.
(2) Interaction with shell completion -- bash won't complete past an
`=' (because it tries to support variable assignment completion),
unless you prefix it with a backslash [with other special
characters, bash will actually fill in the backslash for you, so
they don't appear to be an issue]. I think bash can be fixed to
get past this (see tez's branch of bash*).
* http://arch.bluegate.org:8080/{archives}/tez-2003
-Miles
--
Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.