[ On Wednesday, October 16, 2002 at 11:02:42 (-0400), Jason R. Fink wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
>
> 
> > > How about "verixec"?  VERIfied eXEC
> 
> or vexec ...

double-yuck!  :-)

> No we are not, but this involves the actual code as well and I
> do not like the idea of "verified_exec()" or "kern_verfied_exec.c"
> (the latter of which breaks a convention).

No, I don't think the latter would be breaking any (important)
convention -- it _could_ even be adhering to one in fact.

> veri_exec() and/or kern_vexec.c make more sense from a coding
> standpoint,

veri_exec() is just about as bad as "verixec" or "vexec" or any other
jargonish contraction and worse can be confusing and even lead to typos
caused by that confusion (i.e. "veri" is _far_ too close to "vari").

Saying what you mean in a symbol name (or file name) is equally
important and there are a plethora of ways to avoid having to type too
much if that's your concern.

According to Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike:  Ken Thompson was once asked
what he would do differently if he were redesigning the UNIX System.
His reply:  "I'd spell creat with an e."  (as related in a footnote in
"The UNIX Programming Environment" by K&P)

> however, the "Name itself" certainly could (should???)
> be "Verified Executables."

on this we agree!  ;-)

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;           <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>