On 2023-01-13 1:44 am, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
it seems like we could easily find a better name for this file, more
descriptive of its purpose and less related to the original author.
While this might be true, I don't think there is a pressing reason to
change the name of a high-level interface just because three letters
of the name refer to an author. `hel-arabic.ly` exists since more
than five years, and nobody has ever complained about the name, as far
as I can remember.
But what is the point of this high-level interface? Surely, arabic.ly
should be the obvious entry point.
Again, I do not know Arabic music. All I can surmise is that arabic.ly
was not fit for purpose, so Hassan worked on hel-arabic.ly to address
limitations and shortcomings. But for some unknown reason, these
improvements were never integrated into arabic.ly itself. So the
unusual naming convention notwithstanding, I am more surprised no one
complained about this fragmentation of includes.
This is a case of needing to think like a newcomer: how would I know
whether I should be using arabic.ly or hel-arabic.ly? If both really
are valid but fit for different purposes, then the naming should be more
direct. Yet, if Hassan's improvements mean that his file really should
be the preferred entry point, then why are we shipping the old version?
Is it completely out of the question to unify includes and provide a
singular arabic.ly?
-- Aaron Hill
