Thread: [Libclc-developers] Source file names

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

I think we should drop the 'clc_' prefix from the .c filenames and maybe
the internal .h files (the ones that are not installed) in the future.

-- 
Hallvard

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> I think we should drop the 'clc_' prefix from the .c filenames and maybe
> the internal .h files (the ones that are not installed) in the future.
> 

What do we gain?

If a standalone function is named clc_foo, I hope to see
	clc_foo.c
	clc_foo.man
	clc_foo.html
	clc_foo.o
	...

For e.g. clc_strdup, we may get problems since we implement a function 
which frequently already exists. So a man page must be named 
clc_strdup.man (or whatever extension is proper).

We can of course have clc_strdup.man even if we have strdup.c, but that 
makes it harder to script things.

Just my 0.02 NOK.

-- 
boa

libclc home: http://libclc.sourceforge.net

Bj=F8rn Augestad writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> I think we should drop the 'clc_' prefix from the .c filenames and maybe
>> the internal .h files (the ones that are not installed) in the future.
>=20
> What do we gain?

Sorry, that was a rather truncated message.
What I meant to say was, there are filesystems with uncomfortable
limits for filenames, like 8.3 characters or max 14 characters.
So we should try to keep filenames short.

> If a standalone function is named clc_foo, I hope to see
> 	clc_foo.c
> 	clc_foo.man
> 	clc_foo.html

Yes, the manpages must have full names.  However, for unfortunate
systems that don't support man or html there might be a single
clc.txt file which contains the documentation from all the clc*.man
pages.

> We can of course have clc_strdup.man even if we have strdup.c, but that=20
> makes it harder to script things.

Not if it's consistently done.

--=20
Hallvard

>Sorry, that was a rather truncated message.
(as 8.3 is)

>What I meant to say was, there are filesystems with uncomfortable
>limits for filenames, like 8.3 characters or max 14 characters.
>So we should try to keep filenames short.
>
>> If a standalone function is named clc_foo, I hope to see
>> 	clc_foo.c
>> 	clc_foo.man
>> 	clc_foo.html

*grin* clc_foo.htm even!

- Jan Engelhardt

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> Bjørn Augestad writes:
> 
>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>
>>>I think we should drop the 'clc_' prefix from the .c filenames and maybe
>>>the internal .h files (the ones that are not installed) in the future.
>>
>>What do we gain?
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was a rather truncated message.
> What I meant to say was, there are filesystems with uncomfortable
> limits for filenames, like 8.3 characters or max 14 characters.
> So we should try to keep filenames short.

Does anyone on the list even know of a C developer working on platform 
with a 8.3 filesystem only? I don't...

We cannot make everyone happy, and I'm not going to have lousy filenames 
for 99% of us to support 1% working on archaic or very special 
platforms. They won't use libclc anyway.

-- 
boa

libclc home: http://libclc.sourceforge.net

>>>What do we gain?
What don't we gain?

>> Sorry, that was a rather truncated message.
>> What I meant to say was, there are filesystems with uncomfortable
>> limits for filenames, like 8.3 characters or max 14 characters.
>> So we should try to keep filenames short.
>
>Does anyone on the list even know of a C developer working on platform
>with a 8.3 filesystem only? I don't...
(Partially) me... TCPP/DOS is quite handy for Physics in school..

>We cannot make everyone happy, and I'm not going to have lousy filenames
>for 99% of us to support 1% working on archaic or very special
>platforms. They won't use libclc anyway.

- Jan Engelhardt

Thread: [Libclc-developers] Source file names

libclc-developers