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

[Dustin Sallings]

On Oct 18, 2004, at 17:19, John Meinel wrote:

> How do you handle this for CVS? Or is it just that ctags knows about 
> CVS directories and ignores them?

	Well, the easy answer is that I don't use CVS for anything anymore.  
:)  But when I did, there was rarely anything in a CVS directory that 
was of interest to ctags or grep or anything else I used.  But I always 
thought it was pretty annoying there, too.  It makes no sense for the 
to have used a CVS status directory that was so intrusive.

> I was thinking about what was said that find * -name ... | xargs gets 
> replaced by tla inventory.
>
> But find * also has problems with CVS/SVN, etc. In fact, if you run it 
> in any directory below you will still go into hidden directories.

	I've not used subversion, and really have no interest in it.  I used 
CVS for a long time, but it was a pain.  Things are getting better, and 
whenever I can think of a way to make things ever-so-slightly better, 
I'll bring it up.

> I always work around it with:
>
> find . ! -path "*{arch}*" -name .... | xargs

        That does seem to help some, but it's just another workaround.

> But I also tend to work in trees with many nested projects, so I don't 
> have just one top-level directory.
>
> Heck I just looked in the man page and I think:
>
> ctags -R . --exclude="*{arch}*"
> actually this also works, but if you have a strange hierarchy it might 
> fail:
>
> ctags -R . --exclude="*arch*"
>
> This one does have the advantage of ignoring .arch-inventory and 
> .arch-ids as well, though probably ctags wouldn't understand those 
> files and ignores them anyway.

	This is another workaround with a different syntax.  Perhaps I 
should've used gnu grep as an example instead, since (at least in my 
manpage), there is no --exclude functionality.  I'm not convinced that 
having the --exclude functionality in every application would even be 
all that desirable, but having to use it all the time seems like it 
would.

> Now that all that is said, I personally don't care whether it is 
> .arch, or {arch}. I know when I first started I thought .arch would 
> have been better. But now, I don't really care. I think {arch} stands 
> out nicely when browsing. In Windows the .files aren't hidden anyway 
> so there isn't much of a benefit there.

	I think a lot of people have got themselves used to the idea that the 
{arch} directory will be there and accept it.  Some say they even like 
it.  I'm really not that interested in the browsing aspect, though.  If 
I want to know that a directory is arch managed just by looking at it, 
then I can add my own flag there...one more informative for my needs 
(i.e. address@hidden or something).

> I *really* like the ",blah" to mean this is a temporary file, and have 
> started using it very frequently. I never use the + or =, though. I'm 
> not really sure what is what (I think + is precious, ie not source, 
> but I'm at a loss for =)

        I'm right with you on this one.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________