>From: Derick Eddington <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Please drop the ^main^ thing
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:26:38 -0700

> > I meant the latter.  If the library is untarred somewhere else
> > and 'make install'ed, auxiliary files can be left in the
> > untarred site (or 'make install' puts them in different
> > place).  But if we just want to untar directly under library
> > path, then I'd prefer a library package expands into a single
> > directory, under their library name's last symbol.  E.g.
> > if a package provides (acme foo) (acme foo helper1) (acme foo helper2),
> > everything is under acme/foo/, including README.
>
> So the files for those libraries must be(?):
>
> acme/foo/^main^.sls
> acme/foo/helper1/^main^.sls
> acme/foo/helper2/^main^.sls
>
> because "libraries' files are required to be under their library name's
> last symbol".

Oops, sorry, I confused libraries and packages.
I assume auxiliary files are per packages, so
what's required is that "everything in package
expands inside one directory specific to the package".
So sub-libraries in a package don't need implicit file.

acme/foo/^main^.sls
acme/foo/helper1.sls
acme/foo/helper2.sls
acme/foo/README

> > I guess nothing is bad except weird feeling.  On the other
> > hand, I don't need to name my C program entry point to
> > int ^main^(int, char**) or int MAIN(int char**) or something
> > that stands out.  I trained to spot "main" specially.
>
> Another reason I don't like using "main" for the implicit file name is
> that I think libraries named (--- main) are not so uncommon that they
> should have to be named "---/_main.sls" or "---/main/main.sls"

I don't see it so much problem, better than having ^main^,
but opinions vary...

> > > But that means you can never put a
> > > (foo main) library in the "foo" directory, which I don't like.
> >
> > This part I didn't get.  Can you explain in examples?
>
> Say you have libraries (foo bar) and (foo main) and you want their files
> to both be in (not just under) the "foo" directory -- you can't do that
> because, by the rule you mentioned, (foo main) must go in
> "foo/main/main.sls".  I want to support the ability to use or not use
> the implicit file name.

Ah I see; "in 'foo'" means "directly under 'foo', not in
a subdirectory of 'foo'".  English is difficult.

After all, I feel that my opinions are not very strong.
So my position is:

- A package untars into single package directory may be desired.
  -- this means some sort of implicit filename is required.
- ^main^ looks just a little bit too ugly to me.  but I don't
  have alternatives that are technically better.

--shiro