Re: "file name" vs "filename"

[Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1881 bytes --]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>     Our docs currently are about even and I think it would be good to
>>     settle on one?
>> 
>>        % grep "filename" $GCC/gcc/doc/*.texi | wc -l
>>        92
>>        % grep "file name" $GCC/gcc/doc/*.texi | wc -l
>>        103
>> 
>>     (Once we have consensus, I'll add that to codingconventions.html
>>     and start by making the web pages consistent.)
>> 
> The C and C++ standards documents use "file name"; there are other places
> ("bit-field") where the GCC manual has adopted the C standard terminology.
> 
> In this case it might be more appropriate to adopt the POSIX conventions,
> since I suspect most of the uses in the GCC documentation refer to the host
> environment rather than the target language.  This looks like the POSIX
> glossary:
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html
> 
> Here "filename" is given as the correct spelling, except that that glossary
> distinguishes between "filename" and "pathname" (a "filename" is the same as a
> "pathname component").  So perhaps many of the "file name"/"filename" uses in
> the GCC manual ought to be "pathname" instead?

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> See the GNU Coding Standards:
> 
>   Please do not use the term ``pathname'' that is used in Unix
>   documentation; use ``file name'' (two words) instead.  We use the term
>   ``path'' only for search paths, which are lists of directory names.

Based on this it appears "file name" is the one to follow, so I went ahead
and documented this at https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html with a 
patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs-wwwdocs/2023/010210.html .

Should we strive to use pathname (or path name) more broadly as Sandra
wondered? I'm a bit hesitant...

My next step is updating wwwdocs to consistently use "file name.

Thoughts?

Gerald