From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67702 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2018 15:11:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 67692 invoked by uid 89); 3 Apr 2018 15:11:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=adopt, Once, adopted, HTo:U*joel X-HELO: mail-ot0-f175.google.com Received: from mail-ot0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ot0-f175.google.com) (74.125.82.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:11:36 +0000 Received: by mail-ot0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p33-v6so13468201otp.11 for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OL05aiN5rgK+B2q21xR+ROPcehzfrrPVZ8KbGvfytCM=; b=jU0CcAoO4RCYziiudrubfOFALLysheHB4vwFI+UDKUQIf9tR/tqb6MBiQ+YpXsGOht VP05H3s/ABeN43JczgH/nJYuv0VCn/uFoLwp8PtsAMxNliMCuoVTf7WkhUeOh0thuE5R Xp45GUt2vscbrlPM4XnK8MVY9UQaAyfBRx71bmDwAeuuGok+vCbK774NJqI3Y9pg1vc8 j9l88LfWyJ3V1Trf3rAsCYls3fcyCgROKnIJyOi9XqWzJGWyWWFFaFsCDDnEFrA4oJAU VOZNLfoPuWSEiR+B94b42CDSW7mhZw7x3AT3gbh45R1MFzK1K2iyo18OrrqJVo+YC9JS ZhxA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDA7E/dsBTjvRna0Qx5yWo0p6uL72IOBF3DydMeeVNG8a0kVJdr 9uEmt3Y2cGBGi4Zh5EktBuXJruSF X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/SJ+QygFYuGblcEi3jh2gzZyd+xLBzp89kSQDMq+XWZYP7WXWgMlUNheGyQvDcS/PJXXow1A== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2ff2:: with SMTP id b47-v6mr8873977otd.316.1522768295289; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (174-16-100-37.hlrn.qwest.net. [174.16.100.37]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i29-v6sm1706614ote.65.2018.04.03.08.11.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: "file name" vs "filename" To: Sandra Loosemore , joel@rtems.org, Gerald Pfeifer References: <752ed360-324a-73a1-404b-4caa97a9c6af@codesourcery.com> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Joseph S. Myers" From: Martin Sebor Message-ID: Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <752ed360-324a-73a1-404b-4caa97a9c6af@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 On 04/01/2018 04:54 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 04/01/2018 02:56 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018, 3:16 PM Gerald Pfeifer > > wrote: >> >> And now to the most important question of all. ;-) Should we use >> "file name" or "filename" when referring to the name of a file? >> >> 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.) >> >> >> Searching and looking at online dictionaries, it looks like filename >> is the currently preferred form. > > 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? I don't have an opinion on how to spell it but I would like to suggest that once a decision is made and the documentation converges on the same spelling we make it a goal to also add a script to enforce it. That way it stays consistent and authors as well as reviewers can focus on the substance of our changes rather than on the minutia of which equivalent form to choose. Martin PS Incidentally, also unlike C and C++, POSIX prefers the hyphen in side-effect to the non-hyphenated form.