rich at lat.com
Wed Jan 4 14:09:01 UTC 2012
On 1/4/2012 3:40 AM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 12:30 AM, Steve Searle wrote:
>> The case against extensions in this context is that the user shouldn't
>> have to change if the shell script is rewritten in a different language.
>> Having to change from foobar.sh to foobar.pl just because of this change
>> isn't user friendly. And what if you re-wrote it in C?
>> But although you can make a case, it isn't an open and shut one, but a
>> matter of preference I guess. And I certainly think .conf on a file is
>> useful. And maybe even .d
> As I have stated earlier, my take is that extensions should be a clue as
> to what the file has but not something that should be "fixed" as in MS
Well I must disagree to some extent. For some purposes, such as
programming, extensions such as '.c', '.h', '.o' are almost required.
And, of course, not all extensions begin with '.'. For example, it is
common to use 'rc' without the dot for initialization, '~' or similar
for backup/deleted files, etc. And, of course, there's '.gz', '.bz',
'.tar', and a host of others that have become, more or less, a de facto
standard over the years.
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.925 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4122 - Release Date: 01/04/12 02:34:00
More information about the users