a problem with terminology
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(12 Jan 2010 04:24 UTC)
|
Re: a problem with terminology
Derick Eddington
(12 Jan 2010 05:46 UTC)
|
Re: a problem with terminology Thomas Bushnell BSG (12 Jan 2010 06:08 UTC)
|
Re: a problem with terminology
Derick Eddington
(12 Jan 2010 06:36 UTC)
|
Re: a problem with terminology
Derick Eddington
(12 Jan 2010 07:12 UTC)
|
Re: a problem with terminology Thomas Bushnell BSG 12 Jan 2010 06:08 UTC
In my opinion, the use of "search path" is unproblematic, provided it isn't nestled together with sense-1 paths. I would just call those "filenames" and say straight out that this srfi establishes a syntax for filenames. (In Unix--and let's be clear, this is really a Unix srfi--directories *are* files, or they were, before Unix mutated into the current God-knows-what thing.) Thomas On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 21:46 -0800, Derick Eddington wrote: > I also dislike the conflation of the term "path" to mean both those > things. I would like neither to use the term "path", but I used it > because it seemed conventional. > > The current draft actually uses the term "search paths" (note the > plural) to mean its list of searched directories. Prior versions of > this SRFI used the suffix "PATHS" (note the plural) for the environment > variable's name, but I was pressured into changing it to the > conventional "PATH" suffix. I used plural "paths" because it's > consistent with the nature of a sense-2 thing being multiple sense-1 > things which I was calling "path". > > I'll gladly use better terms. I like the term "list of searched > directories" for a sense-2 thing. I don't think I like "file name" for > a sense-1 thing because such a thing can be a directory, but I like > "file/directory name". Unfortunately, I suppose the environment > variable's name should continue to have the "PATH" suffix, otherwise > some people will freak-out :-) > > (JTMI, I think Unixoid PATH should have been named > EXECUTABLE_SEARCH_LIST or something like that. But that would not be > bizarrely truncated in true Unix/C tradition...) >