Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: autoload

On 09/19/2015 10:53 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On Sep 19,  3:12pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
} the creation of a .zwc presupposes subsequent use of it the same way
} that making dinner supposes eating dinner.

Obviously you've never worked in a restaurant.

} I guess the parallel would be 'zip' vs.  'unzip'--we're glad
} that the names are related.

But that's not a parallel at all, because unzip doesn't do anything
with the data that it unpacks.  A better parallel might be, creating
a DVD vs. playing it back.

It's of philosophical interest onlybut this kind of question engages me quite a bit. Your example of 'compiler --run-program' certainly demonstrates the reducto ad
absurdum of the idea--but one might compile something with a dozen different
compilers and compilers might compile any one of thousands of different programs, and the compilers certainly don't care what the program does, and the program
might run under a dozen different OSon any compatible machine--
so their is no 'tight' link. Same with a DVD--one might burn with any one of several programs and play back with any one of several with no link between the creator and the player, and the contents of the product--the DVD--is irrelevant to the burner
and to the player.  (So long as the standards are maintained, of course.)

OTOH zcompile produces a filespecifically and only
usable by autoload, so one might rightly think of zcompile as a subsidiary
program to autoload.  I doubt you could change one without considering the
effect on the other. I'd say it's the same with zip/unzip--if one changes then
the other must change--they are a suite of linked programs. But whereas
unzip does not 'use' the content of whatever it unzips, autoload uses
a .zwc file and is the only program that does. Thusly, a mnemonic similarity
between names would be very mildly usefulthe same way that 'unzip'
is usefully similar to 'zip'. In the real world of course, renaming zcompile
would do far more harm than good, so it's an academic discussion. Had
I been around 20 years ago, I'd have suggested naming it 'makezwc' or
something like that, or 'autoload --makezwc' or some such. One is given
a tiny but friendly hint that things are related, that's all. But unix is not
a friendly placeand seems not to want to be.  It delights in its obscurity.

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author