Re: gnulib-tool --local-dir question

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hm, but couldn't gnulib-tool check for both filenames?
> 
> E.g., when including lib/foo.c test to see if there is a
> 
> $local/lib/foo.c
> 
> and then
> 
> $local/lib%foo.c
> 
> This would give projects an option of whether to use the larger
> hierarchy tree style or simple flat directory with patches style.

Look at the three negative effects of such a change:
  - It would make the gnulib-tool code more complex. There are half a dozen
    uses of local_gnulib_dir.
  - It would make the functionality less well tested. This is a general
    argument against providing two syntaxes for the same functionality.
  - It would slow down gnulib-tool considerably. Much time is already spent
    in func_lookup_file, and it is this function that such a change would
    slow down.

And then look how small the added functionality is: the ability to use
'%' instead of '/' as a pseudo directory-separator.

Bruno