Re: [patchv3 12/11] New options {relative,basename}-with-system-absolute

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:41:31 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
> Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> What about basename-with-system-absolute is not clearer than basename-absolute?

What isn't clear is _when_ absolute file names are printed.
"With-system" is not specific/descriptive enough to tell that.  I can
come up with shorter names with the same deficiency, such as
basename-or-absolute or basename-ifnot-system or even mostly-basename.

IOW, as long as the name itself does not eliminate the need to consult
the documentation, I see no justification for longer names.  A long
name that would not need to consult documentation would be something
like

  basename-but-if-from-system-libraries-then-absolute

but is, of course, preposterously long.

(I'm OK with ending this bykeshedding; I just wanted to explain why I
think the suggested names can be shrunk considerably without hampering
user experience in any way.  I would be happy to come up with
significantly better, but shorter names, but I cannot.)