> From: bill lam > > On Mon, 06 Jul 2009, Sherlock Ric wrote: > > Which proposal for name changes in task.ijs is preferable, A or B? > > > > Proposal A: > > (wouldn't break existing code) > > Leave "shell", "fork" & "launch" as is. > > Create "host" or "hostcmd" as alias for "spawn", deprecate "spawn". > > > > Proposal B: > > (would match Dictionary terminology better) > > Leave "shell" and "launch" as is. > > Rename spawn to "host" or "hostcmd" > > Rename "fork" to "spawn". > > I prefer leaved that to chris for decision on change in task because > it is used in other scripts in jal.
My intention is to facilitate a decision rather than have an arbitrary decision (or worse - no decision) made. I'm sure it is easier/simpler for Chris to make a good decision if good information is available. If there is a strong user consensus about which way to go then it would make sense to take that into account when making a decision. If there is widespread use of the task.ijs code (whether in JAL addons, the base library or otherwise) it becomes more important not to make changes that break existing code. Hopefully this thread will help with that. Based on the response to this thread to date it seems that there are not many users that care one way or the other. That too helps with making a good decision. > btw I patch task.ijs each time I updated the base library so that it > isn't an issue for me. We can all create our own individual custom patches but that doesn't seem like a very sensible use of resources. If we can come up with an agreed set of names & functionality then: * experienced users save effort * new users don't get confused * code is more likely to be shareable Surely that is the point of having a set of base library scripts and Addons in the first place! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
