Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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.
|
