On mardi 04 novembre 2008, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:30 +0100, Melchior wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Yes, because the need to have many files per airport was actually your > > only argument. I based my final suggestion on that "requirement". But, > > ok, let's go with the on-file-per-airport approach. I actually find > > Curt's Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT.xml suggestion the sanest of all. > > .._why_ "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT.xml" and not > "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT/LOXT.xml etc??? 8o) > > ..and, why "Airports/L/O/X/LOXT.xml" and not > "Airports/L/O/X/T/LOXT.xml" etc??? 8o) > > ..I dunno about you guys, FG, SG or the machines, but both > "Airports/L/LO/LOX/LOXT/LOXT.xml" and "Airports/L/O/X/T/LOXT.xml" > adding that final letter level, looks saner to my eyes. ;o)
Fortunately there is only 4 letters to manage, if we had 20 ........... :) , i don't try to imagine. To me, the most ergonomic is the less i have to search within multiple directories, mainly because sometime we are not sure about the spelling. Can you imagine a dictionnary built like these /L/O/X/T/........... The most simple is the best :) -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
