Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9J3YT8s027664 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:34:29 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401F5770D2 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:34:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJksv-0003r5-Cv for migo@homemail.com; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:42:05 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJksT-0003r0-TD for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJksT-0003qo-Fo for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJksT-0003qk-7b for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:41:37 -0400 Received: from [144.140.70.41] (helo=gizmo06bw.bigpond.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJkkw-0000hl-9q for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:33:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 27521 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 03:33:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bwmam11.bigpond.com) (144.135.24.100) by gizmo06bw.bigpond.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 03:33:46 -0000 Received: from cpe-144-132-220-21.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.132.220.21]) by bwmam11.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_4_2a 180/148601727) with SMTP id 148601727; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:33:46 +1000 Received: by freedbms.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CA3383C078; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:34:15 +1000 Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions From: Zenaan Harkness To: arch In-Reply-To: <20041018233511.GA31642@fencepost> References: <1098074588.29545.40.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> <1098092294.5219.8.camel@johannes> <20041018181822.GD9196@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <8D7869BC-213A-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> <1098141434.19575.42.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> <20041018233511.GA31642@fencepost> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1098156854.19575.65.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:34:15 +1000 X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1316 Lines: 32 On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 09:35, Miles Bader wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:17:14AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > If the other discussions that have strongly suggested the user-visible > > portions inside {arch} are being removed (tla 2.0?) with {arch} simply > > becoming an arch system-level database, is there any reason it couldn't > > be renamed .{arch} or similar? > > 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. I said that in the context (I thought) of a complaint about globbing, where * catches {arch} but would not catch .anything including .{arch}. Sure there are workarounds, but this is the crux of this conversation - there are a lot of workarounds, some which, when not known, are potentially "serious". > [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.] Who said anything about it going away? _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/