Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions

[Dustin Sallings]

On Oct 18, 2004, at 16:35, Miles Bader wrote:

> What on earth would the point be?  The only complaints that don't fall 
> into
> the category of "it's just not to my taste" are ones that have to do 
> with
> typing that name in csh/tcsh, and if people don't need to type it, 
> those
> complaints go away.

	That's absolutely false.  My complaint has been that it matches a * 
glob (among other things).  The counter-argument against that has been 
for me to tell all of my tools to work with ``tla inventory.''

	In fact, my complaint seems to be the opposite of what you're' saying. 
 I have no problem typing {arch}, I have a problem avoiding it.

        For example, where I would before type the following:

        ctags -R *

        I now get to type something like this:

        ctags `tla inventory -s`

        Except...oops:

        desktop:~/prog/p4gw/cms 3011> ctags `tla inventory -s`
        /usr/local/bin/ctags: Argument list too long.

	I suppose since this version of ctags has an option to avoid 
clobbering the tags file on a second invocation, I can use 
xargs...unless there's whitespace or something in a filename somewhere.

	Alternatively, I guess I can call ctags in a way similar to my initial 
invocation, but instead either explicitly include only the directories 
likely to contain source for which I want tags, or maybe even a 
[A-z0-9]* to avoid {arch}.

	OK, good, ctags is out of the way with only eight extra characters to 
have to type each time (unless you count the three times I have to hit 
shift).

	It's still worth it to me to use arch, but I'm not so excited about it 
that I need to keep looking around the hood ornament to see the road.

> [Anyway, I don't want {arch} to go away at all, because it's a 
> convenient
> place to put my own arch-related meta-files.]

	I don't think anyone's suggesting the directory should go away, but I 
think it can certainly be more out of the way.

--
Dustin Sallings