People have been objecting to "IronPythonConsole" this whole time. If it were a matter of "just make an alias", then this discussion was moot from the beginning. For that matter, it was moot from before CSharpCompiler, CCompiler, or GnuCCompiler were created. So I don't think that it's as simple for those who originally raised their objections. I think the aim is for consistency, so we don't have to set aliases to use someone else's makefile. (Personally, I never objected to IronPythonConsole -- but if there's a movement to change it, I still say change it to be in line with the other existing naming patterns.)
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joe Mason Sent: Fri 4/15/2005 9:47 AM To: Discussion of IronPython Subject: Re: [IronPython] To Compile or Not to compile, that's the question On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:02:03AM -0700, Keith J. Farmer wrote: > For a compiler, 4 characters is about my limit. After all, it's all > about my code -- not the tool that is used to transform it into > something else. You type the name of the compiler by hand a lot? Wouldn't it be invoked from a Makefile or IDE 90% of the time? Besides, if you really object to a name longer than 4 characters, you can always make an alias, but if there's a name class, it's harder to alias from an ambiguous name to a non-ambiguous one. So it's better to err on the side of non-ambiguity.
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ users-ironpython.com mailing list users-ironpython.com@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
