Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.2076.1298971012.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > > > I think that I agree with you on all counts. I can understand if the path > > stuff > > can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth trying to > > get to > > work right), but it _should_ be able to handle directories with dots in > > them and > > files with no extension. Files without extension may be uncommon in > > Windows, but > > they're common enough on Linux. > > > > Due to the practical need for dealing with Unixy systems (for instance, an > external web server) and cross-OS compatibility, etc, I deal with > extension-less files (and filenames that start with a dot) quite frequently > even on Windows, and even though I'm primarily a Windows user. > > That reminds me of something I've often wondered, though: Does unix consider > a file named ".bashrc" to be a nameless file with an extension of "bashrc", > or just an extentionless file named ".bashrc"? (I know unix doesn't > typically have a concept of file extension, it's all just part of the name, > but unix programs will often care about the extension portion of a > filename.) > >
No, a filename that begins with a dot is just meant to be "invisible", but the dot is in all respects a part of the name. The whole idea of _not_ showing the extensions was probably conjured up in the Usability department at Microsoft? I don't remember if they were mandatory in DOS. In Unix extensions has simply been regarded as part of the name without a fuss. With modern GUIs it seems that this has shifted. But the invisibility dot should not be confused with the extension dot.