🚀 go-pugleaf

From: WHITE V L <vyw@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
To: isaak@decvax.dec.com
Cc: std-unix

Jim Isaak, Chairperson, IEEE/CS P1003

I am very concerned about the reports from the 1003.2 subcommittee that
the names of many commands are being changed for the standard; 
I am led to believe that "lint" is being renamed "lint89" and that
the C compiler is now "c89".    I, for one, don't want the inconvenience of
learning to type new names for such common commands.  I don't want
to revise all my makefiles or scripts solely to change a command name
and I can't believe anyone who had to support an entire operating system 
would like it any better.   And finally, this particular name change
hints that every time any command is modified, its name will change to
reflect its version number, which could generate quite a number of
command name changes per year.  

I assume that the new versions of these programs are sufficiently similar
to the old versions so that they accept most of the same options and arguments
and respond with most of the same behavior (if not, they should be
considered entirely new programs).  If this is the case, most scripts
would not need to be rewritten to accomodate them unless the command name 
changed.  I agree with editor Jeffrey Haemer that if the old command is 
still needed, IT should be renamed.

I understand from the regular summary of standards groups posted
on comp.std.unix that Hall Jespersen and Don Crayun chair and co-chair
1003.2, but their addresses were not included in the summary, which
stated that comments on subcommittees should be addressed to the 1003
chair.  If I should address these comments elsewhere, please let me know.

Thank you.

Vicky White
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
vyw@ornl.gov

Volume-Number: Volume 18, Number 11