Re: Shall we use etc/images more?

[Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>]

Richard M. Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

>     I'm not sure whether to move the lc-* (low resolution copies) images to
>     etc/images/lc or leave them as etc/images/lc*. Thoughts?
> 
> The most natural thing would be to replace `lc-' with a suffix
> or infix; instead of lc-foo.pbm, it would be foo-lc.pbm.
> However, depending on the actual file names, that might cause
> collisions on some systems.

Indeed, the previous prefix was "locol", but that was changed to "lc"
most likely for the reasons you cite.

When I saw how many images were in etc/images, I opted to put these
images in an "lc" sub-directory and strip the lc- prefix. Another
advantage of this is that we gain three characters of uniqueness in the
actual image names. This should allow for more descriptive names such as
ones that Nick used in the gud directory.

It also just occurred to me that we could now be more descriptive name
in the directory name as well by using low-color instead of lc.

What do you think?

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.