Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010102154308.0367e1c0@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender: usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:50:51 -0500
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject: Re: Two glitches for autoconf 2.49b
Cc: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
In-Reply-To: <200101021925.UAA28994@father.ludd.luth.se>
References: <1190-Tue02Jan2001210927+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 08:25 PM 1/2/01 +0100, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
<Snipped>
 >Would it be similarly easy to change man to support the mapping "::"
 >-> "/"? The reason I ask is because perl modules which contain "::" 
is
 >mapped to "/". E. g. the perl module Math::Bigfloat.pm is stored in
 >Math/Bigfloat.pm and you say you're going to use it with the perl 
code
 >"use Math::Bigfloat;". So there is already a mapping "::" -> "/" used
 >in perl.

No, it would not be hard to do this.  But unlike the perl5/lib 
hierarchy where subdirectories are the standard, the man hierarchy is 
*not* supposed to have further subdirectories under man[1-9], as Eli 
has pointed out.

Eli, for LFN environments *only*, would it be better to use just "." in 
place of "::", or would that break the man logic even more than 
"__"?  E.G., is it better for perl to generate "Foo.Bar.blahblah.1" or 
"Foo__Bar__blahblah.1" from "Foo::Bar::blahblah.1"?

---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)