[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a problem with terminology
- To: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: a problem with terminology
- From: Derick Eddington <derick.eddington@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:36:02 -0800
- Delivered-to: srfi-103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; bh=q1t40LdyynlnVCCYEuA+jaHoVZysZ/WomMJ3CmruXno=; b=PzLg2RfBNruKXdVuyTP0eSAaTQE81w628XYXnhOaVYvjfU+PajpnIANqoQpq34cuKU iJAd+PDufJmEfZQ//UT0APkuaHLXGtj+iz6EQHF5v9RLWzwCJwCT/xp8e8Hl69ttNUml 9Q7Oz3EQSy5wAP8iGdZWJ7XG/P5PUQJGkQVio=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=RVRxFidPYGNmiKlKJpSmOrfayrF0Ep9v9lkPCFi30wsKkLDbXimnKcMR4k2zM9RvGP DggLZcCuBiqzF0/z9JYr+wCLKE+fe35cirPWRwtW+3HmMe4dHT3jHBZdb9xCaeC0oZlV NMhL/6Fg2HD7LEMxF7zqi2NqAFbCmKGdrdFR4=
- In-reply-to: <1263276484.5579.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <1263269131.5579.23.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1263275175.30267.196.camel@eep> <1263276484.5579.32.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 22:08 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In my opinion, the use of "search path" is unproblematic, provided it
> isn't nestled together with sense-1 paths. I would just call those
> "filenames"
I think the more precise terms I mentioned should be used.
> and say straight out that this srfi establishes a syntax for
> filenames.
Okay, I'll incorporate such a statement.
> (In Unix--and let's be clear, this is really a Unix
> srfi--
It's a Unixoid and Windows SRFI, yes.
> directories *are* files
Regardless, they are semantically different and should be termed as
such, IMO.
Thanks for the feedback,
--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------