I. Szczesniak writes: > > > If it *did* need to be renamed, would there be a barrier to having an > > > alias? Just have the "-f <x>" handler compare the string against > > > "cmd" and use an alternate name for that one case. (Not pretty, I > > > know, but doesn't seem to pose any obvious problems.) > > > > From a perspective of consensual software design, it is not a good idea to > > use a generic name like "cmd", better would be "kshcmd". > > ksh93 libcmd exists since a long time and renaming the library will > break existing scripts and will not be portable unless libcmd on all > other platforms gets renamed, too. The name is defined by AT&T and not > J?rg Schilling.
I agree that changing the name as seen by users (via 'builtin -f') is a bad idea, but I don't agree that putting plugins in the top level of /usr/lib is a good idea, nor do I agree that the user interface must always map directly into the internal implementation. So, I don't see how renaming or moving aside the library will break any scripts, so long as 'builtin -f cmd' continues to do exactly the same thing. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
