[9fans] naming conventions

[9fans] naming conventions

[EBo]

I do not mean to feed any trolls with this one, but I need to know how
people what some of this addressed in the future.

I've been catching a little flack off and on about the Plan 9's naming
convention of adding a '9' in front of program names.  I've also noticed
that using emulators, on the linux side, prefixing a 9 breaks history
utilization functionality in most of the shells I use.

For immediate discussion, the 9vx executable is part of the vx32 source.
Is it more reasonable in this case to name the executive vx32 instead of
9vx since it is a plan 9 emulator for linux?

As a note, the flack I've been getting is not just about aesthetics.  When
the editor of one of the journals I will likely want to publish in says
"good god, do not name it that.  Starting a proper name or the title of a
paper with a numeral will break some search engines and cataloging
utilities..."  I see this a potential problem.

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[Charles Forsyth]

>Is it more reasonable in this case to name the executive vx32 instead of
>9vx since it is a plan 9 emulator for linux?

not really, because vx32 is the library, and 9vx is just one sample application.
(there are others.)

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[erik quanstrom]

> I've been catching a little flack off and on about the Plan 9's naming
> convention of adding a '9' in front of program names.  I've also noticed
> that using emulators, on the linux side, prefixing a 9 breaks history
> utilization functionality in most of the shells I use.

your shell is broken.  [0-9] are perfectly valid anywhere in a unix file
name.

- erik

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[EBo]

> your shell is broken.  [0-9] are perfectly valid anywhere in a unix file
> name.

does bash completion work for you on *anything*?  Or does it get confused
thinking that you are specifying a previous command (!### in the history)?
Yes, a file/script named [0-9]* is valid, but still breaks things.  Maybe
there is some trick to get around it that I do not knwo about, but the big
issues where those that the editor raised.

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[Stanley Lieber]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:47 AM, EBo <ebo@sandien.com> wrote:
>
>> your shell is broken.  [0-9] are perfectly valid anywhere in a unix file
>> name.
>
> does bash completion work for you on *anything*?  Or does it get confused
> thinking that you are specifying a previous command (!### in the history)?
> Yes, a file/script named [0-9]* is valid, but still breaks things.  Maybe
> there is some trick to get around it that I do not knwo about, but the big
> issues where those that the editor raised.
>
>  EBo --

For what it's worth, ksh on OpenBSD handles completion on 9* files just fine.

-sl

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[erik quanstrom]

> does bash completion work for you on *anything*?

that's a purely theoretical question.  i use rc.

- erik

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[Nick LaForge]

Would a phonetic morphology à la the ceePlusPlus of wiki would suffice
for our lexically challenged friends?

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[hiro]

I tried running 9 9term in bash and had no problems.
Perhaps you haven't set up your $PATH correctly?

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[EBo]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:10:38 +0000, hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I tried running 9 9term in bash and had no problems.
> Perhaps you haven't set up your $PATH correctly?

I can run "9 9term", but what happens when you run something like "9vx -u
glenda -r /some/very/long/path/" and then run "!9vx" the next time to rerun
the last command starting with ?  It probably runs the 9'th command in the
history.  Sorry I was not clear.  I consider this a minor his is a minor
nit, the real problem is the journal editors and assumptions of the search
engines.

  EBo --

Re: [9fans] naming conventions

[erik quanstrom]

> I can run "9 9term", but what happens when you run something like "9vx -u
> glenda -r /some/very/long/path/" and then run "!9vx" the next time to rerun
> the last command starting with ?  It probably runs the 9'th command in the
> history.  Sorry I was not clear.  I consider this a minor his is a minor
> nit, the real problem is the journal editors and assumptions of the search
> engines.

the rc history mechanism doesn't suffer from this.  it's
a simple patch to and uses an external program "-p"
and an rc function "-".

essentially, i ripped off byron's rip off of v10 "=".

- erik