Re: autoload

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/19/2015 10:53 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sep 19,  3:12pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> }
> } the creation of a .zwc presupposes subsequent use of it the same way
> } that making dinner supposes eating dinner.
>
> Obviously you've never worked in a restaurant.
>
> } I guess the parallel would be 'zip' vs.  'unzip'--we're glad
> } that the names are related.
>
> But that's not a parallel at all, because unzip doesn't do anything
> with the data that it unpacks.  A better parallel might be, creating
> a DVD vs. playing it back.
It's of philosophical interest onlybut this kind of question engages me 
quite a bit.
Your example of 'compiler --run-program' certainly demonstrates the 
reducto ad
absurdum of the idea--but one might compile something with a dozen different
compilers and compilers might compile any one of thousands of different 
programs,
and the compilers certainly don't care what the program does, and the 
program
might run under a dozen different OSon any compatible machine--
so their is no 'tight' link. Same with a DVD--one might burn with any 
one of several
programs and play back with any one of several with no link between the 
creator
and the player, and the contents of the product--the DVD--is irrelevant 
to the burner
and to the player.  (So long as the standards are maintained, of course.)

OTOH zcompile produces a filespecifically and only
usable by autoload, so one might rightly think of zcompile as a subsidiary
program to autoload.  I doubt you could change one without considering the
effect on the other. I'd say it's the same with zip/unzip--if one 
changes then
the other must change--they are a suite of linked programs. But whereas
unzip does not 'use' the content of whatever it unzips, autoload uses
a .zwc file and is the only program that does. Thusly, a mnemonic similarity
between names would be very mildly usefulthe same way that 'unzip'
is usefully similar to 'zip'.  In the real world of course, renaming 
zcompile
would do far more harm than good, so it's an academic discussion. Had
I been around 20 years ago, I'd have suggested naming it 'makezwc' or
something like that, or 'autoload --makezwc' or some such. One is given
a tiny but friendly hint that things are related, that's all. But unix 
is not
a friendly placeand seems not to want to be.  It delights in its obscurity.