| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:24:48 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Right. Plus, if the linker *did* consult the filename, imagine what |
| 5 |
>> would happen if someone renamed the file (even by accident) and |
| 6 |
>> changed the version? The parser should not be able to be so easily |
| 7 |
>> fooled - could cause great confusion and or nasty and weird bugs - |
| 8 |
>> seems very fragile to me. Having the version *in* the file is much |
| 9 |
>> safer, since monkeying with that would require editing it the file, |
| 10 |
>> rather than renaming it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You could use the same absurd argument to say that PN and PV shouldn't |
| 13 |
> be in the filename... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No...! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
They are needed because: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1) versions of the *content*, not the *format* are needed for uniqueness |
| 20 |
2) it makes sense to have these in the filename, but not internal meta-data |
Archives