Re: mingwrap -> mingcc

[Francois Gouget]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
[...]
> Hi,
>
> I know this is a real off beat request: rename mingwrap to mingcc.
> It is even so much stranger as I named the thing mingwrap. But to
> be honest, I never liked the name, I think it is misleading.

Shouldn't we have 'wine' somewhere in the name to avoid possible
conflicts? Of course it would be nice to also have something that
reminds of mingw so that we can later have other wrappers for Visual
C++, Borland C++, etc. (if the need arises, I don't see it right now)

So:
  wcc
  wgcc
  wincc
  wingcc
  winecc
  winegcc
  wmingcc

mingwrap -> mingcc

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On December 18, 2002 03:36 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Shouldn't we have 'wine' somewhere in the name to avoid possible
> conflicts? Of course it would be nice to also have something that
> reminds of mingw so that we can later have other wrappers for Visual
> C++, Borland C++, etc. (if the need arises, I don't see it right now)
>
> So:
>   wcc

I suggest this one initially, but Alexandre objected (rightfully so)
that it is too generic. It's a nice name, but we might need wrappers
for different things in the future, and it does not scale.

Besides, we want the name to say that we make gcc look like MinGW.
> wgcc

This one can work too, not bad. In fact, I like it: short, and to
the point. The MinGW compiler is still called gcc, so this works
out very nicely.
> wincc
>   wingcc

Long, and undescriptive. I'd say no.
> winecc

Too generic, it's the same (but longer :)) as wcc.
> winegcc

Why not wgcc?
> wmingcc

This can work too.

So I am OK with the following:
  wgcc
  mingcc
  wmingcc

Probably wgcc is the nicest, shortest, and maybe most easily recognizable
for people. Alexandre, if renaming is acceptable, take your pick! :)

just s/mingcc/<your pick>/g into the patch...

mingwrap -> mingcc

[Francois Gouget]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On December 18, 2002 03:36 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:

[...]
> > winegcc
>
> Why not wgcc?

I had the impression that we were going away from just using 'w' as the
prefix and more towards using 'wine'. So I'm proposing both forms.
> So I am OK with the following:
>   wgcc
>   mingcc
>   wmingcc

I think the ones I prefer are 'wgcc' and 'winegcc'. In both cases we can
add variants: wcl / winecl (Visual C++), wbcc / winebcc (Borland C++ if
memory serves), etc.

mingwrap -> mingcc

[David Fraser]

Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> > On December 18, 2002 03:36 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > winegcc
> >
> > Why not wgcc?
>
> I had the impression that we were going away from just using 'w' as the
> prefix and more towards using 'wine'. So I'm proposing both forms.
> > So I am OK with the following:
> >  wgcc
> >  mingcc
> >  wmingcc
>
> I think the ones I prefer are 'wgcc' and 'winegcc'. In both cases we can
> add variants: wcl / winecl (Visual C++), wbcc / winebcc (Borland C++ if
> memory serves), etc.

I'm all for winegcc and these variants. It's not that much longer to 
type, it's much
clearer (nobody's going to look at their /usr/bin directory and think 
'what's wgcc?'),
and most of the time it's going to be in a Makefile anyway.

David