Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:02:14 +0000 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: files/patch-* pathname separators Message-ID: <20040421130214.GC5052@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpu0zdv7hb.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200404181922.i3IJMkTf044706@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040419032304.GA61048@regency.nsu.ru> <20040419103101.GB26102@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040419110810.GA24385@regency.nsu.ru> <20040420200903.GA6174@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040421094050.GA5052@FreeBSD.org> <40864E82.90904@portaone.com> <xzpu0zdv7hb.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:30:24PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> writes: > > I disagree. `::' is pretty harmless, I never had any problems due to > > it. And, yes, I use bash as my primary shell. > > Seconded. I like the :: convention, and David seems to be the only > one to have a problem with it. I also tend to like the ::-convention, as it is the same separator as used in various programming languages (Ruby, Perl, C++, etc) and thus already is in the "separator" slot in my mind. However, in private mail David referred to a previous discussion that he said had resulted in a decision against it. Is there anybody out there that agree with David in this? I'd really ike to document *something* as the canonical form - and that shouldn't be "patch-aa". If the consensus is that this should use :: as a separator, I'm very happy with that - and if it is that it should be +, I'm more happy with that than with variation :-) Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040421130214.GC5052>