[IronPython] To Compile or Not to compile, that's the question

[Keith J. Farmer]

People have been objecting to "IronPythonConsole" this whole time.  If it were a matter of "just make an alias", then this discussion was moot from the beginning.  For that matter, it was moot from before CSharpCompiler, CCompiler, or GnuCCompiler were created.
 
So I don't think that it's as simple for those who originally raised their objections.  I think the aim is for consistency, so we don't have to set aliases to use someone else's makefile.
 
(Personally, I never objected to IronPythonConsole -- but if there's a movement to change it, I still say change it to be in line with the other existing naming patterns.)

________________________________

From: users-ironpython.com-bounces at lists.ironpython.com on behalf of Joe Mason
Sent: Fri 4/15/2005 9:47 AM
To: Discussion of IronPython
Subject: Re: [IronPython] To Compile or Not to compile, that's the question



On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:02:03AM -0700, Keith J. Farmer wrote:
> For a compiler, 4 characters is about my limit.  After all, it's all
> about my code -- not the tool that is used to transform it into
> something else.

You type the name of the compiler by hand a lot?  Wouldn't it be invoked
from a Makefile or IDE 90% of the time?

Besides, if you really object to a name longer than 4 characters, you
can always make an alias, but if there's a name class, it's harder to
alias from an ambiguous name to a non-ambiguous one.  So it's better to
err on the side of non-ambiguity.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ironpython-users/attachments/20050415/c5cf12b3/attachment.bin>