Rename load command

[kmvanbrunt]

I propose renaming load to load_script.
This will certainly be a breaking change, but it will make the command name more descriptive in what it actually loads.

__relative_load will also be renamed to __relative_load_script.

[tleonhardt]

I prefer to not make major breaking changes like this without good reason. However, I have seen end customers get confused by the load command on multiple occasions - in both cases they mistakenly assumed that it was intended to load a different type of file which made sense for the particular cmd2 application. And this occurred for two different cmd2 applications with two different customers. So in this case, I think changing to this more precise name could help avoid confusion such as this.

Regardless, I want to get any remaining breaking changes like this into the 0.9.13 release so we can work on striving for stability as we lead up to a 1.0 release.

If we do decide to make the change, we need to make sure we change it everywhere including:

• code
• documentation (Sphinx & README)
• examples
• tests

[teto]

+1 for me. I want to use load for sthg else.

[kmvanbrunt]

I'm gonna start this ticket soon, but I want to confirm the name choice with everyone.
load_script is descriptive, but it's long. __relative_load_script is even longer.

Is script a good name? It fits nicely with pyscript. Also consider that __relative_load would become __relative_script.

[tleonhardt]

I would be fine with either load_script or script.

load_script has the advantage of being more descriptive where it is obvious what that command should do. However, script has the advantage of being shorter and more in-sync with naming for pyscript.

Another aspect in favor of load_script would be that end-users who are currently familiar with starting to type load and using tab-completion to finish the command name may find an easier time transitioning to the new command name.

[teto]

load_script is better imo, one can alias the command if it feels it's too long (and with autocompleiton anyway that's less of a problem). And because load_script can be confused with a program command, maybe it should be prefixed with cmd2 ? cmd2_load_script

[kmvanbrunt]

I'd like to avoid using cmd2 in command names since end users of applications may be unaware of the underlying framework and cmd2 won't be a familiar term to them.

Right now I'm leaning toward script just because it relates so well with pyscript. Then our commands reflect the fact that we have normal scripts and Python scripts.

@teto What are the reasons you like load_script better?

[teto]

script meaning is pretty fuzzy while load_script is clearer. Also I like the discoverability reason given by @tleonhardt, when users realize load doesn't work anymore, load_script is close enough thay could discover it via autocompletion or help.

[lancestarr]

How about run_pyscript() and run_script(), and deprecate the others (continue supporting them until the next major version)?

[tleonhardt]

@lancestarr I like the suggestion of run_pyscript() and run_script - I think having the verb in the name helps clarify intent and potentially makes these more discoverable. It is also nice to have the symmetry in naming between these two commands which both run scripts, just different kinds.

I also like the idea of deprecating prior to removing them. I think when we do that we should probably also replace their help text with a deprecation warning.