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

[Miles Bader]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:17:18PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > This is perhaps harder than it should be because tla's output escaping
> > format seems very complicated -- e.g., unicode encoding etc -- and it
> 
> Unicode encoding is actually a good thing. It would indeed be nice to
> have a tla-encoding filter/munger to convert to "xargs" format. Keeps
> everything nice and orthogonal etc...

Not really.  Tla _already has to do it_ -- it has to interact with the
file-system (and support the "--unescaped" option) already, so it can't
avoid having coding conversion of some sort (to the extent that tla needs
it) built-in.

An external tool could certainly duplicate everything in tla, but what on
earth is the point?

The output escaping used by tla currently addressed two problems:

  (1) It avoids conflicts between filenames (and other user strings) and the
      output formats used by tla (white-space separated fields etc).

  (2) It addresses the non-ascii character issue.

(1) is a limited problem, and reasonably easy to work around and support.
Escapes added to solve this problem are easy to decode, and I can deal with
them.  (2) is much more difficult problem, and I certainly don't want (or
need) to deal with it if tla _already has the code to do it_.

Now, if there were an `xxargs' that decoded tla's escaping, presumably _it_
could convert from the current "fully-escaped" format to "half-escaped"
format, and I could use that.  But would simply be a re-implementation of
functionality already present in tla.

If such an external tool _did_ exist, as a scriptwriter, can I rely on this
tool being present if tla is?  Does it become an extra dependency?

-Miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.