[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Filename extension guidelines and man page symlinks

From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: Filename extension guidelines and man page symlinks
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:53:17 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Roy Hills wrote:
> I have two questions, which I hope that someone can help me with:
> 1.  Are there any guidelines on file naming conventions for Perl scripts?
> In particular, should it be called "", or just "foo"?  Currently, I'm
> using the latter naming convention, and include them with the following
> line in
>    dist_bin_SCRIPTS =

You provided conflicting information.  You said "the latter" which
means you are distributing them as "foo" but your says
that you are distributing them as "".  This confuses me.

The implementation of an action should not be exposed to the users.
If 'make' were written in perl would the user need to type in
''?  Then if the implementation were changed to ruby with
*identical* functionality would we force all users to change how they
call it and to type in 'make.rb'?  Then if the implementation were
changed to C would we then force the users to call it 'make.c'?

I believe the implementation should be hidden from the user.  It is an
abstract data type.  As a user I don't want to see it.  For one larger
example, the Debian Policy specifically says not to name files with
implementation specific endings like .sh or .pl.  (See section 10.4.)

Best to avoid encoding the implementation in the name.  Just call it

I use this to my advantage.  I edit as the source file and have
make generate foo and replace @VERSION@ and other variables in the
script.  By having different source and distributed files it gives me
a nice way to expand variables easily.  I used the automake
documentation in section 8.1 Executable Scripts for a template.  You
can find the documenation here.

  info automake Scripts


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]