Re: The hel-arabic.ly file story...

[Aaron Hill]

On 2023-01-13 1:44 am, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > it seems like we could easily find a better name for this file, more
> > descriptive of its purpose and less related to the original author.
>
> While this might be true, I don't think there is a pressing reason to
> change the name of a high-level interface just because three letters
> of the name refer to an author.  `hel-arabic.ly` exists since more
> than five years, and nobody has ever complained about the name, as far
> as I can remember.

But what is the point of this high-level interface?  Surely, arabic.ly 
should be the obvious entry point.

Again, I do not know Arabic music.  All I can surmise is that arabic.ly 
was not fit for purpose, so Hassan worked on hel-arabic.ly to address 
limitations and shortcomings.  But for some unknown reason, these 
improvements were never integrated into arabic.ly itself.  So the 
unusual naming convention notwithstanding, I am more surprised no one 
complained about this fragmentation of includes.

This is a case of needing to think like a newcomer: how would I know 
whether I should be using arabic.ly or hel-arabic.ly?  If both really 
are valid but fit for different purposes, then the naming should be more 
direct.  Yet, if Hassan's improvements mean that his file really should 
be the preferred entry point, then why are we shipping the old version?  
Is it completely out of the question to unify includes and provide a 
singular arabic.ly?


-- Aaron Hill