Craig Dickson wrote: > > Michael D. Schleif wrote: > > > How would you like to handle 0x08, 0x0a or 0x0d ??? Remember, we are > > talking about text handling here, not binaries . . . > > We can sensibly limit ourselves to printable characters for filenames; > it's silly to suggest that if you let people use spaces, next they'll > want control characters.
How so? My reply is in response to this: ``well, it's a valid character, why shouldn't it be there?'' Simply because something can be done does not warrant doing it . . . > There is a good reason to support spaces if you want your OS to appeal > to ex-Windows or ex-Mac users, who are used to creating filenames like > "Letter to Joe.doc" or "Smith Family Budget.xls". I'll leave that debate for others -- nevertheless, this is one remarkable reason that windoze file handling is so weak ;> Besides, my point, as stated previously, is this, "Perhaps, you ought to ``correct'' the tools, then impose arbitrary complexity ???" Please, do not put the cart before the horse . . . > Unfortuantely, since spaces in filenames have never been a priority for > Unix users, most Unix tools behave counter-intuitively (from the > perspective of someone new to the system) when confronted with such > things. In general, your examples are very weak. Are you familiar with $IFS and its ilk? [ snip ] > If Unix were just being developed today, without thirty years of history > and backward-compatibility to worry about, I'd submit a bug report for > things like this. You might submit it; but, you wouldn't get very far. Remember, we're not talking just *nix here -- ever tried os/390? > I understand why it works the way it does; I just > think it was a mistake. I was there, for some of this. Trust me, it was no mistake . . . -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 888.250.3987 Dare to fix things before they break . . . Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .