Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-06 12:37 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-05 23:12 +0300) wrote: >> >>> Alex Kost skribis: [...] >>>> I've realized that "pretty-sha-path" is a bad name, because those 32 >>>> numbers and letters have nothing to do with SHA-sequences as I thought >>>> initially. So maybe it would be better to rename it into >>>> "pretty-hash-path" or "guix-pretty-path" (as it will be a part of Guix) >>>> or something else. Or is it OK to leave it as it is? >>> >>> Good point. Prefixing with ‘guix-’ makes sense, and it will be easier >>> for users to find it. >>> >>> While we’re at it, “path” in GNU normally means “search path”, not “file >>> name” (info "(standards) GNU Manuals"), so perhaps >>> ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ or something like that would be even better. >>> WDYT? >> >> I think ‘guix-pretty-file-names’ is too long for a package name as all >> symbols have to be prefixed with it. What about ‘guix-prettify’? > > OK! Thanks, here is the patch again: the package was renamed; regexp was corrected; a reference in “guix.texi” was made and "path"-s were replaced by "file name"-s. It's still not too late to rename everything if ‘guix-prettify’ looks unsatisfactory.