newsticker-*.el files

newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

The newly installed newsticker-*.el files cause file-name clashes on
8+3 (a.k.a. DOS) filesystems.  Can we rename them in a way that avoids
such clashes?  All that is needed that the first 8 characters of the
basename be different; as long as they are, there's no problem for the
basename itself to be longer than 8 characters.

TIA

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > The newly installed newsticker-*.el files cause file-name clashes on
  > 8+3 (a.k.a. DOS) filesystems.  Can we rename them in a way that avoids
  > such clashes?  All that is needed that the first 8 characters of the
  > basename be different; as long as they are, there's no problem for the
  > basename itself to be longer than 8 characters.

The DOS port currently does not work, it has been approved for removal,
and you said that it might never be revived.

Why do this work now, when it's highly possible that the uglyfied names
might never be needed?  

Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
brought back to life?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[David De La Harpe Golden]

Dan Nicolaescu wrote:

> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> brought back to life?


Well, there's always freedos http://www.freedos.org/

'''
Most FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public
License ("GNU GPL").
'''

No I don't really think emacs should worry too much about MSDOS support
all the same, but DOS-compatibles are still hanging about in embedded
computing, POS and various legacy business systems etc. (and of course
emulation).

Note that FreeDOS is an install option with Dell PCs, too.
(probably mostly so that they ship with _some_ minimal OS to thumb their
nose at Microsoft's "naked PC" campaign, but still)
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries


FreeDOS and DRDOS must pretty much have the market between them now that
MS have abandoned MSDOS. :-)

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:44:00 +0100
> From: David De La Harpe Golden <david@harpegolden.net>
> CC: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>, 
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> No I don't really think emacs should worry too much about MSDOS support
> all the same

Neither do I.  No one expends any effort whatsoever on the DOS port
except myself, for a very long time now.  I really don't understand
the knee-jerk reaction this causes some people whenever I ask to
rename a bunch of files.  Perhaps I should simply rename them myself
silently to whatever names I like, to avoid the repeated discussions,
like the one that will undoubtedly ensue in this case.  Too bad my
upbringing makes it hard for me to do that without consulting the
author first.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> No I don't really think emacs should worry too much about MSDOS support
>> all the same
>
> Neither do I.  No one expends any effort whatsoever on the DOS port
> except myself, for a very long time now.  I really don't understand
> the knee-jerk reaction this causes some people whenever I ask to
> rename a bunch of files

I think the reason is pretty simple actually:  People don't like the
resulting naming restrictions, especially given that there's at least a
perception (I don't have any hard data) that MSDOS is essentially dead
(there are no doubt industrial controllers and the like that still use
MSDOS or some derivative, but they're not a likely target for Emacs).

-Miles

-- 
Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:21, Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> wrote:

> I think the reason is pretty simple actually:  People don't like the
> resulting naming restrictions

Someone with a proven, distinguished track as an Emacs maintainer asks
for a few name changes in order to make his work easier in the future,
and we give him hell every time because of a dislike of "naming
restrictions"? That does not seem like a good argument to me.

I'd rather discuss why the recent menu changes were checked in almost
without discussion, than spend more time pointlessly arguing against
changing a few characters in five file's names.

   Juanma

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Leo]

On 2008-06-08 23:01 +0100, Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>   > The newly installed newsticker-*.el files cause file-name clashes on
>   > 8+3 (a.k.a. DOS) filesystems.  Can we rename them in a way that avoids
>   > such clashes?  All that is needed that the first 8 characters of the
>   > basename be different; as long as they are, there's no problem for the
>   > basename itself to be longer than 8 characters.
>
> The DOS port currently does not work, it has been approved for removal,
> and you said that it might never be revived.
>
> Why do this work now, when it's highly possible that the uglyfied names
> might never be needed?  
>
> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> brought back to life?

This sounds quite sensible. Anyone out there uses Emacs 23 under dos?

-- 
.:  Leo  :.  [ sdl.web AT gmail.com ]  .:  [ GPG Key: 9283AA3F ]  :.

        Use the better alternative -- http://www.openoffice.org/

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:44:57 +0100
> 
> On 2008-06-08 23:01 +0100, Dan Nicolaescu wrote:
> >
> > The DOS port currently does not work, it has been approved for removal,
> > and you said that it might never be revived.
> >
> > Why do this work now, when it's highly possible that the uglyfied names
> > might never be needed?  
> >
> > Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> > brought back to life?
> 
> This sounds quite sensible. Anyone out there uses Emacs 23 under dos?

See above: it doesn't currently work, so no one can use it.

Not that I see how this is relevant: all I'm asking is not break it
more than it is already broken, so that the efforts to revive it won't
be harder than they have to.  The cost of this request is so low that
I'm bewildered why I need to justify it each time.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> Not that I see how this is relevant: all I'm asking is not break it
> more than it is already broken, so that the efforts to revive it won't
> be harder than they have to.  The cost of this request is so low that
> I'm bewildered why I need to justify it each time.

I think the perception is that the benefit is less than the cost,
even if the latter is "low".

-Miles

-- 
Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish
their lack of understanding.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
> Cc: Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:23:02 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > Not that I see how this is relevant: all I'm asking is not break it
> > more than it is already broken, so that the efforts to revive it won't
> > be harder than they have to.  The cost of this request is so low that
> > I'm bewildered why I need to justify it each time.
> 
> I think the perception is that the benefit is less than the cost,
> even if the latter is "low".

I submit that with a sufficiently low cost, the benefits are
irrelevant.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
>> Cc: Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:23:02 +0900
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> > Not that I see how this is relevant: all I'm asking is not break it
>> > more than it is already broken, so that the efforts to revive it won't
>> > be harder than they have to.  The cost of this request is so low that
>> > I'm bewildered why I need to justify it each time.
>> 
>> I think the perception is that the benefit is less than the cost,
>> even if the latter is "low".
>
> I submit that with a sufficiently low cost, the benefits are
> irrelevant.

Emacs is not occupational therapy.

Apart from that: renaming files in CVS is not "sufficiently low cost".
Man weeks of discussion are not "sufficiently low cost".  Supervising
people to monitor 8.3 restrictions time and again is not "sufficiently
low cost".  If the benefits are irrelevant and we are just talking about
a way to spend the time, playing arcade games is more fun.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:34, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Apart from that: renaming files in CVS is not "sufficiently low cost".

Well, it is, if done now. It is not, after the files have accumulated
history. We've renamed files for less logical reasons (I'm thinking of
old-whitespace...)

> Man weeks of discussion are not "sufficiently low cost".  Supervising
> people to monitor 8.3 restrictions time and again is not "sufficiently
> low cost".

As Eli is the one doing that work, it is low cost for the rest of the
Emacs developers. Or would be, were not so inclined to discuss the
issue once and again. Which is entirely the point.

> If the benefits are irrelevant and we are just talking about
> a way to spend the time, playing arcade games is more fun.

Please!

   Juanma

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Richard M Stallman]

    Apart from that: renaming files in CVS is not "sufficiently low cost".
    Man weeks of discussion are not "sufficiently low cost".

Then don't object, and the cost will be low.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Miles Bader]

Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>     Apart from that: renaming files in CVS is not "sufficiently low cost".
>     Man weeks of discussion are not "sufficiently low cost".
>
> Then don't object, and the cost will be low.

Being forced to use contorted unreadable filenames is a cost.

-Miles

-- 
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without
knowledge, of things without parallel.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[dhruva]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
> Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>>     Apart from that: renaming files in CVS is not "sufficiently low cost".
>>     Man weeks of discussion are not "sufficiently low cost".
>>
>> Then don't object, and the cost will be low.
>
> Being forced to use contorted unreadable filenames is a cost.

Not sure how feasible/acceptable this alternative would be:
create a folder 'lisp/net/newsticker/' (or whatever). Put all the
files with shortened names under that. The folder can act as a
namespace with a meaningful name for people averse to contorted names.

-dhruva

-- 
Contents reflect my personal views only!

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Richard M Stallman]

    Being forced to use contorted unreadable filenames is a cost.

Actually I find very long source file names to be inconvenient.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Richard M Stallman]

    Not that I see how this is relevant: all I'm asking is not break it
    more than it is already broken, so that the efforts to revive it won't
    be harder than they have to.  The cost of this request is so low that
    I'm bewildered why I need to justify it each time.

I agree.  It is a small thing to ask, so we may as well do it.

Also, the names of those files are inconveniently long.
It would be natural to shorten them while making them
differ within the first 8 characters.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Miles Bader]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:
> The DOS port currently does not work, it has been approved for removal,
> and you said that it might never be revived.
>
> Why do this work now, when it's highly possible that the uglyfied names
> might never be needed?  
>
> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> brought back to life?

An eminently practical solution.

-Miles

-- 
`Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities.
 But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that
 they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_)

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Stefan Monnier]

> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> brought back to life?

Sounds like a good plan,


        Stefan

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:49:38 -0400
> 
> > Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> > brought back to life?
> 
> Sounds like a good plan,

Plan for whom?  Guess who will carry out this plan when the time
comes?

Please don't make any "good plans" for me.  I can do that myself,
thank you very much.

Look, we've already collectively wasted what I estimate as 1/2 to 1
man-hour on this fruitless discussion about a non-issue, just this
time.  What I ask for costs much less.  How about being practical
rather than ideological, and while at that, honor a simple request of
an old-time Emacs hacker?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > > From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
  > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
  > > Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:49:38 -0400
  > > 
  > > > Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
  > > > brought back to life?
  > > 
  > > Sounds like a good plan,
  > 
  > Plan for whom?  Guess who will carry out this plan when the time
  > comes?
  > 
  > Please don't make any "good plans" for me.  I can do that myself,
  > thank you very much.

This would be valid IF there was a strong promise that the DOS port
would be made functional again.  But YOU never said that it surely will,
quite the contrary YOU stated in the past that the port might never be
revived.

As the time passes, the chances that this port would be made to work
again decrease, so it's natural that the restrictions for it are
unwanted.  So why suffer through them?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[David Kastrup]

Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>   > > From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>   > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>   > > Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:49:38 -0400
>   > > 
>   > > > Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
>   > > > brought back to life?
>   > > 
>   > > Sounds like a good plan,
>   > 
>   > Plan for whom?  Guess who will carry out this plan when the time
>   > comes?
>   > 
>   > Please don't make any "good plans" for me.  I can do that myself,
>   > thank you very much.
>
> This would be valid IF there was a strong promise that the DOS port
> would be made functional again.  But YOU never said that it surely will,
> quite the contrary YOU stated in the past that the port might never be
> revived.

I think it quite more likely if there are any DOS machines used for
development that getting sshd on them to work and visiting them via
Tramp will be less work than Emacs.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  ulf.jasper@web.de,  Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:47:05 +0200
> 
> I think it quite more likely if there are any DOS machines used for
> development that getting sshd on them to work and visiting them via
> Tramp will be less work than Emacs.

I reckon this is joke, because DOS doesn't even have an IP stack, not
to mention the fact that it's a single-process system and thus cannot
support daemons of the sshd kind.  So making sshd work on DOS would be
a major project, indeed.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
> Cc: Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:01:04 -0700
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
>   > The newly installed newsticker-*.el files cause file-name clashes on
>   > 8+3 (a.k.a. DOS) filesystems.  Can we rename them in a way that avoids
>   > such clashes?  All that is needed that the first 8 characters of the
>   > basename be different; as long as they are, there's no problem for the
>   > basename itself to be longer than 8 characters.
> 
> The DOS port currently does not work, it has been approved for removal,
> and you said that it might never be revived.
> 
> Why do this work now, when it's highly possible that the uglyfied names
> might never be needed?  
> 
> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
> brought back to life?

Why ask these questions time and again, when I already answered them
several times in the past?  Here goes again: I'm asking not to make my
life harder if and when I find time to make the DOS port of Emacs 23
work again.  Doing all of the renames later will make it much harder,
especially since CVS doesn't cope well with renaming; doing it now
doesn't lose any CVS history, and doesn't require contacting all of
the package maintainers at once.

The author agreed (in private email to me) to rename the files when he
has time.  I trust him that the names he comes up with will not be
ugly, because it's his package.  So it's a non-issue, and making it an
issue each time this comes up only eats up more of our resources than
is necessary.

If you indeed cherish so much our resources, why waste them on this
subject time and again?  It almost sounds like you have an agenda
here.  Do you?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Miles Bader]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> If you indeed cherish so much our resources, why waste them on this
> subject time and again?

One might ask the same thing about MSDOS support...

-Miles

-- 
Absurdity, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own
opinion.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>
> Cc: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>, ulf.jasper@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:13:16 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > If you indeed cherish so much our resources, why waste them on this
> > subject time and again?
> 
> One might ask the same thing about MSDOS support...

Only _my_ resources, if at all, are wasted on that.  As long as it's
_my_ decision, and doesn't cost any significant effort to others, I
don't see anything wrong with that.  Do you?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Chong Yidong]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Why not do the renaming work at the time when the DOS platform is
>> brought back to life?
>
> Why ask these questions time and again, when I already answered them
> several times in the past?  Here goes again: I'm asking not to make my
> life harder if and when I find time to make the DOS port of Emacs 23
> work again.  Doing all of the renames later will make it much harder,
> especially since CVS doesn't cope well with renaming; doing it now
> doesn't lose any CVS history, and doesn't require contacting all of
> the package maintainers at once.
>
> The author agreed (in private email to me) to rename the files when he
> has time.  I trust him that the names he comes up with will not be
> ugly, because it's his package.

Let's leave the matter at that.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Ulf Jasper]

Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> The newly installed newsticker-*.el files cause file-name clashes on
>> 8+3 (a.k.a. DOS) filesystems.  Can we rename them in a way that avoids
>> such clashes?  All that is needed that the first 8 characters of the
>> basename be different; as long as they are, there's no problem for the
>> basename itself to be longer than 8 characters.
>
> Sorry, I didn't think about that. I left the 8+3 world some ten years
> ago. I will rename the files (probably tomorrow -- have to find a good
> name first). IIRC, when dealing with CVS, renaming means removing and
> adding with a new name.

Unfortunately I forgot to CC the list when I answered Eli's
request. Maybe that could have shortened the discussion.

I am looking for a new name... The "canonical" replacement for the
"newsticker" prefix would be "nt" which somehow sounds very
8+3-ish. "nwstckr" sounds even more so. And is incredibly ugly. One
could rename the whole newsticker thing and call it err... Emacs RSS
Reader.

Probably it will be "nt".

Ulf

-- 
Klicken Sie HIER und Sie erhalten vier Dosen umsonst

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Chong Yidong]

Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de> writes:

> Unfortunately I forgot to CC the list when I answered Eli's
> request. Maybe that could have shortened the discussion.
>
> I am looking for a new name... The "canonical" replacement for the
> "newsticker" prefix would be "nt" which somehow sounds very
> 8+3-ish. "nwstckr" sounds even more so. And is incredibly ugly. One
> could rename the whole newsticker thing and call it err... Emacs RSS
> Reader.
>
> Probably it will be "nt".

Unfortunately, that sounds like a certain operating system.  How about
"rss"?

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[David Kastrup]

Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:

> Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de> writes:
>
>> Unfortunately I forgot to CC the list when I answered Eli's
>> request. Maybe that could have shortened the discussion.
>>
>> I am looking for a new name... The "canonical" replacement for the
>> "newsticker" prefix would be "nt" which somehow sounds very
>> 8+3-ish. "nwstckr" sounds even more so. And is incredibly ugly. One
>> could rename the whole newsticker thing and call it err... Emacs RSS
>> Reader.
>>
>> Probably it will be "nt".
>
> Unfortunately, that sounds like a certain operating system.  How about
> "rss"?

"ticker"?  But it seems like "rss" is not yet taken, though "nnrss" is.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Ulf Jasper]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com> writes:
>
>> Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> I am looking for a new name... The "canonical" replacement for the
>>> "newsticker" prefix would be "nt" which somehow sounds very
>>> 8+3-ish. "nwstckr" sounds even more so. And is incredibly ugly. One
>>> could rename the whole newsticker thing and call it err... Emacs RSS
>>> Reader.
>>>
>>> Probably it will be "nt".
>>
>> Unfortunately, that sounds like a certain operating system.  How about
>> "rss"?
>
> "ticker"?  But it seems like "rss" is not yet taken, though "nnrss" is.

"rss" seems too specific. It is just one of the supported feed formats
("atom" is the other one). "ticker" also seems too specific. The ticker
is just one way to present news.

According to wikipedia newsticker would be called a "feed reader" or
"feed aggregator" which for example could be abbreviated as
"fag"... Probably not the best idea.

I think I like "nt". I don't mind if it sounds like an operating system
or whatever. It is a good abbreviation for "newsticker". And
"newsticker" is not the worst name for a feed aggregator.

Ulf

-- 
Klicken Sie HIER und Sie erhalten vier Dosen umsonst

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 764 bytes --]

() Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>
() Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:52:33 +0200

   Probably it will be "nt".

Since newsticker handles other feed formats,
not just RSS, how about:

feedread
readfeed
rd-feed
feeddisp ("display")
feedshow
showfeed
feedtick
tickfeed
showxmlf (show XML (as opposed to some more elegant
                    sexp equivlant)
               feed)
etc, etc.

Personally, i prefer "showfeed", which can be shortened to "shfeed"
and then suffixed: "shfeed-x" (XML), shfeed-s (sexp), shfeeddN
(data acquisition -- think process monitoring -- format N), etc.

If you stretch a bit, another (further) stopping point is "tree":
"shtree".  I would be pleased to use such a facility for examining
gnugo.el runtime structures, for example.  Presently, `pp'


[-- Attachment #2: (http://www.gnuvola.org/software/j/gnugo/screenshots/2.png) --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 22485 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 33 bytes --]


and `describe-text-properties'


[-- Attachment #4: (http://www.gnuvola.org/software/j/gnugo/screenshots/3.png) --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 12397 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #5: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]


work ok but are not as smooth as they could be.  Anyway,
probably if you rename it like Knuth would, you'll be ok!

thi

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Ulf Jasper]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> writes:

> feedread
> readfeed
> rd-feed
> feeddisp ("display")
> feedshow
> showfeed
> feedtick
> tickfeed
> showxmlf (show XML (as opposed to some more elegant
>                     sexp equivlant)
>                feed)
> etc, etc.

feedread sounds good. "feedreader" sounds even better and would be a
better name than "newsticker" I think.

newsticker.el           -> feedreader.el  (feeadrea.el)
newsticker-backend.el   -> feedr-back.el  (feedr-ba.el)
newsticker-plainview.el -> feedr-plain.el (feedr-pl.el)
newsticker-reader.el    -> feedr-read.el  (feedr-re.el)
newsticker-ticker.el    -> feedr-tick.el  (feedr-ti.el)
newsticker-treeview.el  -> feedr-tree.el  (feedr-tr.el)

That would match the 8+3 rule, be readable, and even be reasonable.

> Personally, i prefer "showfeed", which can be shortened to "shfeed"
> and then suffixed: "shfeed-x" (XML), shfeed-s (sexp), shfeeddN
> (data acquisition -- think process monitoring -- format N), etc.
>
> If you stretch a bit, another (further) stopping point is "tree":
> "shtree".  I would be pleased to use such a facility for examining
> gnugo.el runtime structures, for example.

Extending newsticker, I mean feedreader, shouldn't be too difficult.
Retrieval is generic already as it can be done with an arbitrary elisp
command. Making newsticker=feedreader understand other feed formats is
easy, as long as the formats are well tempered. And of course one may
write another frontend/reader. But I don't see how you could play go
with it.

>                                                  Anyway,
> probably if you rename it like Knuth would, you'll be ok!

My copy of taocp has been collecting dust lately -- how would he do it?

Ulf

-- 
Klicken Sie HIER und Sie erhalten vier Dosen umsonst

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:34:02 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> newsticker.el           -> feedreader.el  (feeadrea.el)
> newsticker-backend.el   -> feedr-back.el  (feedr-ba.el)
> newsticker-plainview.el -> feedr-plain.el (feedr-pl.el)
> newsticker-reader.el    -> feedr-read.el  (feedr-re.el)
> newsticker-ticker.el    -> feedr-tick.el  (feedr-ti.el)
> newsticker-treeview.el  -> feedr-tree.el  (feedr-tr.el)

You don't have to truncate the parts after the dash, if you don't want
to, as long as the first 8 characters are unique.  That is,
feedr-backend.el, feedr-plainview.el, feedr-ticker.el, etc. will be
just fine.

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>
() Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:34:02 +0200

   But I don't see how you could play go with it.

You couldn't, but you could observe go (and other[0]) games
(and related metadata) on the fly.  That's fun, too.

   how would [Knuth] do it?

First the name, then the program (too late in this case! :-D).

thi


[0] http://www.red-bean.com/sgf/

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Ulf Jasper]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> writes:

> First the name, then the program (too late in this case! :-D).

Which implies that a new name requires a new program!?

Renaming a program from x to y means renaming all functions and
variables. Then what happens to user customizations? One could leave it
to the user to translate x-* to y-*, but that of course is not an
option. One could define lots of obsolete-(function|variable)-aliases.
Or one could provide a "migration tool" that does the translation.

Is there a recommended procedure?

Ulf

-- 
Klicken Sie HIER und Sie erhalten vier Dosen umsonst

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Stefan Monnier]

> Is there a recommended procedure?

The recommended procedure is: don't rename!
If you want to fix the 8+3 issue, you can just rename the files
newsticker-<foo> to newst-<foo> or nt-<foo> or ntick-<foo>.  But the
content of the files shouldn't change.
If/when Eli decides to give up on MS-DOS support we can rename the files
back to their real names.


        Stefan

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Ulf Jasper]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> The recommended procedure is: don't rename!
> If you want to fix the 8+3 issue, you can just rename the files
> newsticker-<foo> to newst-<foo> or nt-<foo> or ntick-<foo>.  But the
> content of the files shouldn't change.

Agree. I still want to fix the 8+3 issue, but I give up my plans to
rename newsticker to feedreader. I did not realize how much effort that
would require.

Sorry for the noise.

Ulf

-- 
Klicken Sie HIER und Sie erhalten vier Dosen umsonst

Re: newsticker-*.el files

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

() Ulf Jasper <ulf.jasper@web.de>
() Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:05:56 +0200

   Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org> writes:

   > First the name, then the program (too late in this case! :-D).

   Which implies that a new name requires a new program!?

No, only that a new program is best written after a new name is
chosen.  In this case, a named program exists and its name is
changed afterwards, so Knuth's approach is not even applicable.
(No worries; no big deal.)

thi