Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:44:48 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Subject: Re: Two glitches for autoconf 2.49b
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010102154308.0367e1c0@pop5.banet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010103104429.1129E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> 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"?

It doesn't really matter: both require changes in `man' if we want the
user to be able to say "man Foo::Bar::blahblah".  And the changes are
simple, as long as you don't convert invalid characters to slashes,
because that breaks the directory traversal code used by `man'.

I like the underscore solution better, because it works both in LFN
and non-LFN environments.  I don't see any advantage for using `.',
only disadvantages.

I do agree that a single underscore is better, for 8+3 systems' sake.