[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I'm not sure if your question is real or ironic.
Can't it be both?
> I had assumed it was obvious to everyone in this community that names,
> in general, should not carry implicit information about the
> objects they
> refer to: or at any rate, that there are better ways of representing
> this information than packing it into three bytes of the name.
Ironically, I can both agree and argue with you at the same time.
Simple question: How many people who use Windows turn on file extensions in
Explorer? It's the first thing I do.
With these UNIX systems (and Mac), it's not so much that I miss good ol'
file extensions, it's that there's a lack of format information in default
directory listing formats. And ls -l is overkill.
I find that icons alone don't help especially icons that tie standard
formats to only one application (which on a strange system, I may not be
familiar with).
3-letter format notations don't bother me; 4 would be better. Longer would
be harder to eyeball parse quickly.
|
