[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.7.14 Analysis
From: |
Frank Heckenbach |
Subject: |
Re: 3.7.14 Analysis |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jun 2022 21:38:15 +0200 |
slipbits wrote:
> Often when <file>, file, filename is used what is meant is
> <path>/filename. The discussion of filename appears to be a discussion
> of <path>, things such as relative path and absolute path do not exist
> for a filename. Could this be corrected in future Bison documentation?
That's a matter of terminology. The coding standards for the GNU
project (to which Bison belongs) say (and I happen to agree), see
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.html
(a few paragraphs down):
Please do not use the term "pathname" that is used in Unix
documentation; use "file name" (two words) instead. We use the
term "path" only for search paths, which are lists of directory
names.
So what you call a "path" above would be called a "directory", and
"file name" includes the directory, thus can be relative or
absolute. (I'd call a file name without a directory a "base name",
though that's not specified there.)
Writing "<path>/filename" all the time (cf. your other comments)
seems quite unwieldy; another reason I agree to have a single term
for it.
(Not a Bison maintainer, though I've contributed to the Bison manual
and other GNU code and documentation.)
- 3.7.14 Analysis, slipbits, 2022/06/11
- Re: 3.7.14 Analysis,
Frank Heckenbach <=