From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24993 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2013 08:09:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 24980 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2013 08:09:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:09:39 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MHJ003007YLT200@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:09:04 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MHJ0036R7Z4CUB0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:09:04 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:09:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patchv3 12/11] New options {relative,basename}-with-system-absolute In-reply-to: To: Doug Evans Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83a9rocv6v.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20130129221019.GA27463@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130130074820.GA15998@host2.jankratochvil.net> <8338xiiodg.fsf@gnu.org> <83sj5ih6c4.fsf@gnu.org> <20130130185344.GA15502@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83obg6h1pf.fsf@gnu.org> <83libagghx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lib9chfb.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:41:31 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches > > 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.)