> Ugh, yeah, please don't do that. Renaming them just to make it "look more modern" helps nobody, really. Especially if the suggestion is people should be using the shared-launcher binary anyway.
The way things like 'git' work is that 'git thunk' just looks in a designated directory for an executable called git-thunk, and invokes it if it's found. If you want to invent your own git subcommand, you can. I guess 'git help' wouldn't know to list it, but you can still get the metacommand to execute it. That only works if you use a standard naming, though. If the meta-executable has to hard-code the names of all the individual executables that it calls, then you can't really make that work.
You could make the legacy names symlinks to the new systematic names.