#AShell
5 messages in this thread
That's an interesting idea. I wonder how often it would get used, extensions
aren't too popular with a lot of folks, it seems.
thanks for the comment, sdb
Well, extensions are already used with ARexx and I haven't heard too many
complaints. I know I couldn't keep track of all the shell scripts, awk scripts,
sed scripts, etc, etc, without using file extensions.
Peter_S (LeCroy)
Scott;
I think that file extensions are great. Its just that I want to use mine and
don't care for the system making assumptions about names that I might use…..
In particular I keep the '.com' and '.exe' extensions with IBM files that I
have stored on the system and it would really torque me off if the system
assumed that those were executable because of their names.
=>73<=, bill <KB7LX @ WA4LPD>
Bill,
I agree about being forced to use a particular extension on certain types of
files. That's why I like the PolyTron method so much, it puts the decision into
YOUR hands. It will execute whatever you tell it is executable, using whatever
interpreters neccessary (ie, rx). If you don't like somebody's default file
extensions for whatever reason, just set it up the way you like it and change
the file names.
Peter_S (LeCroy)
Scott,
I LOVE extensions on files. I do, however, like to keep _required_ extensions
to an absolute minimum. Another message here speaks of ARexx requiring
extensions, but that isn't quite true. If a file has an extension, and that
extension is not '.rexx', it will not be recognized by its 'body' name alone. A
file without an extension, called by its full name, will be checked for ARexx
validity. Thus, I can choose to call my ARexx scripts by simple or compound
name, as I see fit. I usually choose to add the '.rexx' extension for my own
ease, but I am VERY glad that it is not a requirement.
You should see some of my filenames:
IBM.haha
Mac.sheesh
NewWB.when
Extensions as a requirement should definitely be avoided by developers.
-larry