Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:29:27 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: files/patch-* pathname separators Message-ID: <xzphdvdv4qw.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040421130214.GC5052@FreeBSD.org> (Eivind Eklund's message of "Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:02:14 %2B0000") References: <200404181922.i3IJMkTf044706@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040419032304.GA61048@regency.nsu.ru> <20040419103101.GB26102@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040419110810.GA24385@regency.nsu.ru> <20040420200903.GA6174@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040421094050.GA5052@FreeBSD.org> <40864E82.90904@portaone.com> <xzpu0zdv7hb.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040421130214.GC5052@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I also tend to like the ::-convention, as it is the same separator as > used in various programming languages (Ruby, Perl, C++, etc) and thus > already is in the "separator" slot in my mind. However, in private mail > David referred to a previous discussion that he said had resulted in a > decision against it. Is there anybody out there that agree with David > in this? All previous discussions of which I am aware ended with ports people saying "this is how we do things" and David objecting strenuously. If David thinks otherwise, he should provide relevant references to archived threads. Or he could just save us all (and himself) a lot of grief, stop worrying, and learn to love the bomb. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzphdvdv4qw.fsf>