Paul Eggert wrote:
> Most of the changes come from the following part of the GNU
> coding standards:
>
> Please do not use the term ``pathname'' that is used in Unix
> documentation; use ``file name'' (two words) instead. We use the term
> ``path'' only for search paths, which are lists of directory names.
This citation is taken from the recommendations for GNU Manuals. As such,
it applies to source code only if you want to use the same speak in the
code as in the documentation.
IMO, for an end user, "file name" is really the better term, because the
user thinks to designate a file or directory. However, in implementation
code - such as path-concat - we the hackers think about the structure of
the string, with directory separators and dots etc. I think "pathname"
applies well to this context.
There are more differences between the language of different groups, such
as:
end user programmer
-------- ----------
program executable
shared library shared object
character combined character
(since the user doesn't a base character
and its attached combining characters as
separate entities)
file name pathname
block of memory page (of memory)
user name user fullname
login name user name
Etc.
For this reason, I don't see why I should rename the 'pathname' module.
It's not visible to the end user.
Bruno
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
