Masatake YAMATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2005-09-03 20:18:28 GMT Stefan Reichoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> patch-21 >> >> Summary: >> Started dvc development >> Revision: >> xtla--dev--1.2--patch-21 >> >> New files: >> * dvc-core.el: Will contain the core functionality similar to >> xtla-core.el >> * dvc-defs.el: Will contain common definitions similar to xtla-defs.el >> * xtla-mercurial.el: Xtla's mercurial interface >> >> Implemented the first command for mercurial/hg: xhg-diff >> >> Note: the prefix used for mercurial is xhg, to avoid a name clash with >> mercurial.el > > The prefix "xhg" is good. With the prefix we can deal multiple implementation > for one protocol: tla, baz and bzr for arch. > > I think you should apply this prefix to naming files; rename xtla-mercurial.el > to xhg-???.el.
I have no strong opinion here. I named the file like the official name of the system and used the name of the executable for the prefix in the lisp files. My way makes it easier to see, what system is meant without the need to know the name of the command line client. > I think xhg will comes from files in the future: > > xhg-defs.el > xhg-core.el > xhg-cmd.el > xhg-???.el > ... > dvc-core.el > dvc-def.el > dvc-utils.el > ... > > I think you may have following plan now: > > xtla-mercurial.el > dvc-core.el > dvc-def.el > dvc-???.el Your above suggestion looks reasonable. Stefan.
