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 >> >> Steve >> > > Steve: > > 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 > > Thanks, > Paul > 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.
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
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
