Re: update-subdirs and lisp/term

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > > From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
  > > Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
  > > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:07:34 -0400
  > > 
  > > >> > Does anyone know why we skip lisp/term in update-subdirs?
  > > >> Because files in lisp/term are always loaded with the term/ prefix.
  > > > Thanks.  But why is that a good idea?
  > > 
  > > It reduces the length of load-path and increases our namespace?
  > 
  > But this can be said about any other subdirectory of lisp/, can't it?
  > 
  > > Let me put it another way: why would it be a good idea to put lisp/term
  > > in update-subdirs?
  > 
  > To avoid a special case that someone could trip on.  Every other
  > subdirectory gets subdirs.el created in it, but term does not.
  > Imagine that we will want to have subdirectories under term some day.
  > Why ask maintainers to use up one more register for remembering this
  > factoid, or risk strange failures/bugs?
  > 
  > That said, I won't argue.  If the above is not convincing, then so be
  > it.

IMHO it's not convincing at all.  Let's look at the history, the latest
files added in lisp/term:

term/common-win.el on 2008-07-20 (it's just a refactoring of existing term/*win.el files)
term/ns-win.el on 2008-07-15 -- new port, we don't get these very often, we have 4 total...
term/cygwin.el on 2005-07-22 
term/linux.el on 1997-07-04 

Based on the past, the probability of something dramatic happening there
is very small, and it can be dealt with at the time it happens.