On 22 Feb 2018, at  7:45  +0530, Ankit R Gadiya wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I added two new PKGBUILD(s) today in the AUR, both are plugins for vim.
> Any advice, suggestions or feedback will be greatly appreciated.
> And if anybody would like the *-git versions of these I will be more
> then happy to add them as well.
> 
> 1. ranger-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ranger-vim/
> 2. tcomment-vim: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/tcomment-vim/
> 
>       install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/plugin/tcomment.vim" 
> \
>               "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/plugin/tcomment.vim"
>       install -Dm755 "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/doc/tcomment.txt" \
>               "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/doc/tcomment.txt"
>       install -Dm755 
> "${srcdir}/${pkgname/-/_}-${pkgver}/autoload/tcomment.vim" \
>               "${pkgdir}/usr/share/vim/vimfiles/autoload/tcomment.vim"

Normally I wouldn't actually comment on this niggle, but I'd argue
that it's often best to optimize for legibility.

Now, there are definitely religious differences on this point. The
names of the packages are almost certainly not going to change (unlike
the versions), so personally, I'd say that "tcomment-vim" is going to
be immediately clearer to the reader than $pkgname, and "tcomment_vim"
is *definitely* going to be clearer than "${pkgname/-/_}" (and the use
of the shell replacement is what inspired me to make this comment).
Granted, it's not going to be *difficult* to figure out, but there you
go. Anything else others already mentioned.

Cheers,
iff

Reply via email to