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 i9J4hOcF020414 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:43:25 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004BE76F5F for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 04:43:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJlxa-00026X-6B for migo@homemail.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:50:58 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJlxH-00026S-O0 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:50:39 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJlxH-00026G-9h for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:50:39 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJlxH-00026D-6z for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:50:39 -0400 Received: from [202.32.8.214] (helo=tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CJlpp-00006S-Tz; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:42:58 -0400 Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp (mailgate54.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.197]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id i9J4guA28256; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:56 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id i9J4gtQ00275; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from edtmg02.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.16.202]) by mailsv5.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILSV4-NEC) with ESMTP id i9J4gs527362; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edtmg02.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9J4grqc016067; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from mctpc71 (mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp [10.30.118.121]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.8/EDcg v2.01-mc/1046780839) with ESMTP id i9J4gqwt000537; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:52 +0900 (JST) Received: by mctpc71 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 955954D0; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:52 +0900 (JST) To: Zenaan Harkness 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> <1098156854.19575.65.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> From: Miles Bader System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:52 +0900 In-Reply-To: <1098156854.19575.65.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> (Zenaan Harkness's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:34:15 +1000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: arch Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: File naming conventions X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Miles Bader 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: 1306 Lines: 23 Zenaan Harkness writes: >> 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}. The files under {arch} are _part_ of the source tree for some purposes; morever there are often "source" files which begin with ".". The original complainer wanted to run ctags, and thought that including {arch} was bad; Is it? Why? If ctags works recursively, then surely it has a mechanism to separate "source" from "non-source" files (of which there are usually plenty in a source tree); why don't these work with {arch}?? Is it because of pristines? If so, the solution is to get rid of them, not rename {arch}. -Miles -- Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. -- Jerry Garcia _______________________________________________ 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/