[m-dev.] [ddw at miscrit.be: mmc vs a_mmc vs mumc]

[Peter Ross]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:59:47PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 21-Nov-2000, Tyson Dowd <trd at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > I see no major problems with making the name of the scripts
> > configurable so they can be whatever you like
> 
> I don't think that would be a great idea. 
> It's better to pick some standard names and use those.
> Anything else is a recipe for confusion, IMHO.
> 
> However, we could have some longer alternative names,
> e.g. `mercury_compile', `mercury_profile', `mercury_link',
> `mercury_c_compile', and we could make sure that Mercury programs such
> as Mmake and mmc which invoke other Mercury programs such as mgnuc do
> so via the long (and thus hopefully conflict-free) names, rather than
> via the short names.
> 
So a current proposal would be to add the following long names:

    mdb     = mercury_debug
    mgnuc   = mercury_c_compile
    ml      = mercury_link
    mprof   = mercury_profile
    mmc     = mercury_compile

The original names just then become forwarding scripts to the actual
commands.

The only issue I have with this is to do with shell quoting.  I have had
problems in the past with forwarding scripts is regards quoting.

lmmake 'MCFLAGS=--option-a --option-b'

where lmmake contains a line like

mmake "$@"

Will this be a problem for any of our scripts?

Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------