Re: Re: [ANN] Org-babel integrated into Org-mode

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

On Jun 26, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Štěpán Němec wrote:

> "Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com> 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
>>>
>>
>> Hi Štěpán,
>>
>> The guidelines I mentioned (I believe) specify that all file names  
>> for
>> emacs-lisp files which are part of Emacs must be unique in the  
>> first 6
>> or so characters.  This is why all "(require 'ob-*)" lines (which  
>> must
>> correspond to file names) now use ob-* instead of org-babel-*.   
>> Since I
>> (like you) prefer the org-babel-* prefixes, those have been  
>> retained for
>> all function and variable names.
>
> I see. Hm... could you provide some source for that? 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.

This is a restriction from the compiler.

However, Emacs wants to be installable on many systems, including MS- 
DOS, which has only 8+3 character file names.  Therefore, Emacs  
requires that the names are unique in the first 8 letters - they may  
be longer than 8, but they must be unique when shortened.

I cannot find the reference now, but I did explicitly ask a short  
while ago and got this confirmed by Stefan Monnier.

>
> Is that perhaps what you meant? In any case, I see that the
> recommendation I quote above would make the file renaming necessary,
> too.
>
> (Also, I believe you actually did mention renaming *functions*, which
> created my confusion in the first place -- cf. the commit message of
> e0e4d76094f26 for example.)
>
>> Hope this explains it, I'm certainly open to other naming  
>> suggestions.
>
> It would make a lot of sense to at least still begin the file names  
> with
> `org' IMHO, if at all possible.

This will not solve the problem, I fear.

- Carsten