Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net
From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: System 7.0 & Aliases
Message-ID: <1440@intercon.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 89 16:37:00 GMT
References: <1430@intercon.UUCP> <951@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> <4453@cps3xx.UUCP> <1436@intercon.UUCP> <1399@esquire.UUCP> <299@6sigma.UUCP> <4072@internal.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@intercon.UUCP
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 27

In article <4072@internal.Apple.COM>, shebanow@Apple.COM (Andrew Shebanow)
writes:
> Before we let this whole file ID thing get out of hand, I'd like to
> point out a few things:
> 
> First of all, the documents that describe file IDs that were given
> out at the Developer Conference were PRELIMINARY. The design has
> changed quite a bit since then, so any assumptions made based
> on those documents could be hazardous to your software.

Quite true.  My objection is mostly philosophical, and I'm even moderating
on that a little bit these days.  My basic problem was (and still is)
having two (or more) access paths to a file, which can be decoupled from
each other.   I think this is a bad idea as it stood in the preliminary
docs.

The underlying issue seems to be that it can be very useful to refer to
a file's name and it's contents separately.  I still think that this has
the potential for all sorts of confusion, but I do admit that it can reduce
other kinds of confusion...

--
Amanda Walker
amanda@intercon.uu.net    |    ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
--
"Nihil est ab omni parte beatum."
Tr.: "Nothing is an unmixed blessing."  --Horace