|
From: | Stephan Schmitt |
Subject: | Re: [Orgmode] Re: [ANN] Org-babel integrated into Org-mode |
Date: | Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:45:49 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
Also sprach Eric Schulte:
Štěpán Němec<address@hidden> writes:"Eric Schulte"<address@hidden> writes:Štěpán Němec<address@hidden> writes: [...]How come some of your rewrites above still use the `org-babel-' prefix? (As a side note, I don't see what Emacs guidelines suggest `ob-' is more appropriate than `org-babel-', and I would personally prefer to retain the latter -- it's much more descriptive.) Štěpán
[...]
The only restriction on file names I can recall is this section from Appendix D of the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual: * Please keep the names of your Emacs Lisp source files to 13 characters or less. This way, if the files are compiled, the compiled files' names will be 14 characters or less, which is short enough to fit on all kinds of Unix systems.
Are there any unix systems running emacs 22 (iirc org-mode doesn't support emacs 21 anymore) which have problems with long filenames? We're living in the 21st century, aren't we? [...]
It would make a lot of sense to at least still begin the file names with `org' IMHO, if at all possible.hmm, the longest (non-language-specific) file name is already 12 characters long, (length "ob-tangle.el") ;; => 12 which doesn't give us much room to play around with. Looking at a couple of possible prefixes, and the related leftover characters for differentiating the *-tangle, *-comint, *-ref, etc... core babel files, yields the following | prefix | remaining characters | |----------+----------------------| | ob- | 5 | | org-b- | 2 | | orgb- | 3 | | org-bbl- | 0 | | bbl- | 4 | | babel- | 2 | #+TBLFM: $2='(sbe leftover (prefix $$1)) #+source: leftover #+begin_src emacs-lisp :var prefix="" (- ;; length w/o .el (- 13 (length ".el")) ;; length of prefix (length prefix)) #+end_src Personally, none of the above seem to be particularly superior to the current naming scheme, given the fact that we need to fit multiple files behind this prefix.
I think you have to add 2 to each of the numbers above. But the conclusion surely remains the same... Greetings, Stephan
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |