Ben Finney dijo [Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:40:46PM +1000]: > > > On the other hand, Section 10.4 says only "the script name should not > > > include an extension". So you can leave the extension for > > > > What is the intention of this rule anyway? > > To encourage command names (and hence command APIs, since the name is > part of the API for the command) that do not encode implementation > details, such as the programming language. This allows the program to be > later re-implemented in a different language without the command name > being misleading.
And because extensions truly mean nothing. Of course, I can implement foo.py in Ruby as I am just prototyping but later decide to reimplement it (using the same name, as many scripts already depend on it) in Perl. In a Unix system, extensions are usually appended garbage which adds very, very little real value. ...Or possibly we could decide on renaming /bin/ls to /bin/ls.elf in order to show what kind of file it is, and allowing for different implementations to coexist? -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
