unixCmd --> shellCmd?

Should we deprecate unixCmd and rename it to shellCmd?

  • In favor: The latter is more accurate by including non-Unix OSes (in fact, we’ve supported ms-dos commands in Windows for years but still routinely get questions on the forum about it).

  • Against: Unknown but perhaps high impact on legacy code.

hjh

3 Likes

There are other platform specific names, most notably CmdPeriod class, it would be more consistent to change them all at once, but all are big breaking changes.

1 Like

I’m cautiously in favor of changing the platform-specific classes, but I would keep the old ones as deprecated indefinitely. The impact on old code will be large IMO.

1 Like

I’m w/ @MarcinP on this one. Let’s not break legacy code.

I’m in favor: if we can deprecate something like Pstutter, I think we ought to be able to deprecate unixCmd as well. I may be wrong about it, but I expect that a future removal of Pstutter is much more likely to break legacy code than a somewhat exotic feature like unixCmd.

Somewhat off-topic: when deprecating something, having a clear message is essential.
Revisiting some old code this morning I was met with the following cryptic message:

WARNING: Called from SfzTester:init, method UnitTest:run is deprecated and will be removed. Use UnitTest:run instead.
1 Like

This quark uses unixCmd: New quark: LinuxUtils @madskjeldgaard

Processes are working quite differently on Windows vs Unix right?
Platform specific classes might have one advantage: they do the right thing on the specific platform. I would really hesitate to remove unixCmd, just advise people to use shellCmd?