[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Naturally "inconsistent" naming convention
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Naturally "inconsistent" naming convention |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Arch is based on the idea that you have to have a consistent naming
> convention, which you should describe in =tagging-method.
That's roughly correct.
> But what about those cases where some classes of files are source while
> others are auto-generated. A typical example being C files generated by
> lex&yacc.
What about them? Some projects want to count those generated files as
source, others don't --- arch provides enough flexability to achieve
either aim.
Sometimes people gripe that they *can't possibly* get their build
system to not stash those files in source trees. Strangely,
confronted with that beginner's-mistake difficulty in their build
system, they choose to complain here.
> Are we supposed to tell lex&yacc to generate file names like
> +lexer.c (which won't work in languages like OCaml or Java where
> where file names have to be the same as module names)? Or are
> we supposed to list of those exception in arch-inventory?
A less strident/flippant answer is:
The inventory system is very valuable, both within arch and without.
(Consider, for example, how `inventory' can be usefully substituted
for `find' in various pipelines.)
I would not and do not claim that the current inventory system is the
last word in inventory systems. I would speculate that the current
inventory system can be improved. The question is: how exactly? I
would claim that that is a deep question and requires careful thought.
Thanks,
-t