Re: Heads up: cli subdirectory check in tonight

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>]

Michael Meissner wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 03:53:10AM +0000, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > > It seems weird to have cli/cli-<xxx>.  I would think moving them to a new
> > > subdirectory, you could rename them to cli/<xxx>.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I had the same doubts.  I believe I posted the question and I got only
> > only reply in favor of "cli-foo".
> >
> > And we do currently have both mi and gdbtk subdirectories following the
> > "keep the prefix" rule.
> >
> > I personally had no preferences but I admit this way prevents name clashes,
> > specially in these UI directories.  You see, these possible gdb dialects
> > like the CLI, the MI, some GUILE interface, our Tcl code etc may tend to
> > have things like "parser", "cmds", "cmdloop" etc.
> >
> > This would not make sense in other contexts though.
> 
> The problem is if you still have to worry about the old DOS 8.3 limit or the
> System V.[12] limit of 14 characters total, having a prefix greatly cuts down
> on the available names.
> 

I followed the 14 characters limit.  I lost 4 to the prefix, as you pointed
out, and 2 are for the ".c".  This left me with the 8 characters I had to
cope with for years (I may have given away my age :-) ).  It is not that bad.

But as I said, I am not picky about this.  But again, we should also go
and rename (get rid of prefixes) in the mi and gdbtk subdirectories.

We can also do this at a later time, when Andrew makes the files reorg that
he promised.  Then we change everything with the same criteria.
I would prefer keeping the current practice for now, for the sake of 
uniformity.

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9