28 Aug
2006
28 Aug
'06
11:38 p.m.
> Unix was the first system that I'd ever seen
where the file name
> implied a type.
By "type", I mean:
"This is a photograph"
"This is a MSWord 'document'"
"This is a TIFF image"
"This is a C source file"
"This is a C++ header file"
I don't think Unix file names imply types, though for some types they
do imply default types. (Or, to put it another way, they imply types
in an advisory, not mandatory, sense.)
(And yes, I realize the above quotes are not from the same person. In
fact, the one looks like a response to the other.)
E.g., ages ago [...] I could do "asm
foo.obj" if I had a perverse
sense of humor *and*, as long as "foo.obj" contained valid "src
code", the application would process it as such.
But, nowadays, systems seem (excepting Macs?) to all
tie some
significance to the "extensions" tagged onto filenames. E.g., they
gag on files named "MyFile", "ReadMe", etc. because they can't
infer
the file type from the name (lacking a suitable "extension").
This does not describe any even vaguely Unixish system in my
experience. All of them handle such things just fine - indeed, I have
a number of plain text documentation files named something.doc on my
home machines.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B