From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10512 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2015 15:37:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 20608 Received: (qmail 13108 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2015 15:37:14 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=T/C1EZ6Q c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=s29CTmHa7U/x68CX52ea5Q==:117 a=s29CTmHa7U/x68CX52ea5Q==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=MfNknxW2xwixkTy24NYA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <55FED2A7.2030806@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 08:37:11 -0700 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: autoload References: <55FAE223.2080502@eastlink.ca> <150917103419.ZM10067@torch.brasslantern.com> <150918171441.ZM27212@torch.brasslantern.com> <55FD7982.9030505@eastlink.ca> <150919092922.ZM28214@torch.brasslantern.com> <55FDA5D3.9020304@eastlink.ca> <150919142243.ZM23634@torch.brasslantern.com> <55FDDDDE.5000207@eastlink.ca> <150919225308.ZM4746@torch.brasslantern.com> In-reply-to: <150919225308.ZM4746@torch.brasslantern.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On 09/19/2015 10:53 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Sep 19, 3:12pm, Ray Andrews wrote: > } > } the creation of a .zwc presupposes subsequent use of it the same way > } that making dinner supposes eating dinner. > > Obviously you've never worked in a restaurant. > > } I guess the parallel would be 'zip' vs. 'unzip'--we're glad > } that the names are related. > > But that's not a parallel at all, because unzip doesn't do anything > with the data that it unpacks. A better parallel might be, creating > a DVD vs. playing it back. > It's of philosophical interest onlybut this kind of question engages me quite a bit. Your example of 'compiler --run-program' certainly demonstrates the reducto ad absurdum of the idea--but one might compile something with a dozen different compilers and compilers might compile any one of thousands of different programs, and the compilers certainly don't care what the program does, and the program might run under a dozen different OSon any compatible machine-- so their is no 'tight' link. Same with a DVD--one might burn with any one of several programs and play back with any one of several with no link between the creator and the player, and the contents of the product--the DVD--is irrelevant to the burner and to the player. (So long as the standards are maintained, of course.) OTOH zcompile produces a filespecifically and only usable by autoload, so one might rightly think of zcompile as a subsidiary program to autoload. I doubt you could change one without considering the effect on the other. I'd say it's the same with zip/unzip--if one changes then the other must change--they are a suite of linked programs. But whereas unzip does not 'use' the content of whatever it unzips, autoload uses a .zwc file and is the only program that does. Thusly, a mnemonic similarity between names would be very mildly usefulthe same way that 'unzip' is usefully similar to 'zip'. In the real world of course, renaming zcompile would do far more harm than good, so it's an academic discussion. Had I been around 20 years ago, I'd have suggested naming it 'makezwc' or something like that, or 'autoload --makezwc' or some such. One is given a tiny but friendly hint that things are related, that's all. But unix is not a friendly placeand seems not to want to be. It delights in its obscurity.