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

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:07:09 -0800
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> >> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:48:05 -0800
>> >> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> >> Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>> >>
>> >> The nice thing about {relative,basename}-with-system-absolute is that
>> >> they are clear.
>> >
>> > They aren't to me.  They might be clear _after_ you know what they
>> > mean, exactly.  But then so would be every shorthand of them.
>>
>> So then why not reduce them even more?
>
> That could work, but hard to tell without seeing specific suggestions.

Apologies.  My point was that at some point things become too terse.
Names aren't just mnemonics to trigger memory - ideally they shouldn't
have to trigger any memory as the name is already clear.

What about basename-with-system-absolute is not clearer than basename-absolute?