"I. Szczesniak" wrote: > On 9/22/06, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > > > > The name libcmd is significant because it is a library which can be > > > > referenced using > > > > builtin -f cmd commandname > > > > to load one of the commands located in libcmd. > > > > The name 'cmd' is a well known location to find those commands for > > > > dynamically linked versions of ksh93. Renaming the library will break > > > > existing scripts like our and this is not acceptable. > > > > > > Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > 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
BTW: Per definition it's AST's libcmd and not ksh93's 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. I agree completely here... ---- bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
