Re: [rfc v2][4/6] Readlink as file I/O target operation

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:32:23 +0100 (CET)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > > +@item vFile:readlink: @var{pathname}
> > > +Read value of symbolic link @var{pathname} on the target.  Return
> > > +the number of bytes read, or -1 if an error occurs.
> > 
> > This part is okay, but please don't use "pathname" when you really
> > mean "file name".  GNU Coding Standards frown on using "path" or its
> > derivatives for anything but PATH-style directory lists.
> 
> I'll be happy to use "filename" instead, but the currently existing
> packets (open, unlink) also use "pathname" today.  Should those be
> changed to "filename" too?

In general, yes.  But I cannot in good faith ask you to do that as
part of this patch.  So let's make a first small step in this
1000-mile journey by using "filename" in just this part.  I'll add to
my todo to fix the rest, if no one beats me to it.

Thanks.

> (B.t.w. note that those packets are directly related to the corresponding
> POSIX routines open/unlink/readlink -- the documentation of those routines,
> whether in POSIX itself or in the corresponding Linux man pages consistently
> refers to those arguments as "path" or "pathname" ...  I'm wondering whether
> it is a deliberate decision on the part of the GNU Coding Standards to deviate
> from established terminology in that area?)

Everyone else calls the system "Linux", while the FSF insists on
"GNU/Linux".  Nothing new here.