Daniel Carrera wrote:
>>>Now, why do we have to pick a creative name?  Why don't we pick a boring 
>>>uncreative name that is easy to remember, like "rubydoc".
>>
>>:)
>>
>>I care much less about the name than the software functionality and
>>the content it exposes.
>>
>>But as an old-time Unix hacker, I prefer short names. Two letters is
>>best, but my usual threshold is around five.
>>
>>That's one reason I like "lin" (on Lunar Linux) better than apt-get or
>>whatever. Though I will probably end up running Fedora instead...
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you.  Names with dashes are the worst ("apt-get").  My fingers 
> have to physically pause for a second to type a dash.
> 
> 
> Oh, wait... how about "rdoc"?
> 
> That would rock.  The name of the program could be the same as the name 
> of the documentation system, and at the same time be a sensible name.
> 
> If you like the name "rdoc" raise your hand.

I think I might sort of like that, except that
1. Dave Thomas might not (probably would not) like it (See
    reasons 2 and 3)
2. It might cause confusion
3. "rdoc" is already a program name (processor for
    rdoc-enabled Ruby code)


Hal