Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09+ From: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: New convention for owned resources Message-ID: Date: 19 Oct 90 19:52:56 GMT References: <2001.271ca261@waikato.ac.nz> <2005.271d7a03@waikato.ac.nz> <1990Oct17.220257.26134@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, <2017.271f4a05@waikato.ac.nz> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: <2017.271f4a05@waikato.ac.nz> > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.programmer: 19-Oct-90 Re: New > convention for owne.. Lawrence D'Oliveiro@waik (983) > Hmmm, I thought of a potential drawback: if you're adding extension > code to an application resource file, would the BNDLs for your > extensions cause any possible confusion with the existing BNDL > for the application itself? Would the Finder still display the > right icons? I think we were going to name them "bndl" as opposed to "BNDL" to avoid that problem, but even that might cause confusion. Off the top of my head, may I suggest "ownd" or "OWND"? (Anyone have a better idea?) +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Vincent Del Vecchio \ #include | | Box 4834 \ #include | | 5125 Margaret Morrison St.\ BITNET: vd09+%andrew@cmuccvma.bitnet | | Pittsburgh, PA 15213 \ UUCP: harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09 | | (412) 268-4441 \ Internet: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+