Re: Image handling in mutt

[songbird <songbird@anthive.com>]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 01:28:20PM -0500, songbird wrote:
>> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

  there is rarely a need to e-mail me directly.

>> ...
>> > That's why I cringe when people name executables "foo.sh". What do you
>> > do when you decide to rewrite the thing in C (or Rust, or whatever)?
>> >
>> > Do you go over all calling sites and change the caller's code?
>> 
>>   no, i would just consider it a transition or a change
>> in versions.  :)
>
> Again. You have one script, say /usr/local/bin/ring-the-bells.sh
> You use it in several other scripts. If you now re-implement it
> in your favourite Pascal as ring-the-bells.pas or something, you
> go over all your executables and fix that?
>
> IMO an executable name should indicate /what/ an executable does,
> not /how/.

  i'm fine with that, but i'm also capable enough to know
how to search through a code base to find all the strings
i might need to change.

  i just scanned a few of my projects and noted i do not
use the .sh extension much at all for the binaries/executables,
but parts of the code may have that extension.


>>   i was always glad when people wrote descriptive names
>> for their programs instead of "f" or "f(x)".
>
> This is something totally different. Call the function by
> what it does, but -- again -- not by how.

  :)


>>   since my first major programs were written in Assembler
>> Pascal and C whatever extensions needed for those were 
>> used, i didn't see it as any fault.
>
> It is your prerogative, of course. I'm happy that ls is ls
> and git, git (not ls.i-was-implemented-in-c or something).

  sure.


  songbird