Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!vax1.tcd.ie!hughesmp
From: hughesmp@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn,eunet.micro.acorn
Subject: Re: Continuing gripes about filename conventions...
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.133453.7780@vax1.tcd.ie>
Date: 13 Feb 91 13:34:53 GMT
References: <795@utrcu1.UUCP> <1991Feb11.100559.15181@and.cs.liv.ac.uk>
Organization: Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 36

In article <1991Feb11.100559.15181@and.cs.liv.ac.uk>, rkl@and.cs.liv.ac.uk writes:
> In article <795@utrcu1.UUCP>, kortink@utrcu1.UUCP (Kortink John) writes:
>> dhmyrdal@lise.unit.no (Dag Haakon Myrdal) writes :
>> 
>>> (For those having access to a VAX: yes, this is similar to the way 
>>> the VAX handles file version-numbers)
>> 
>> Personally, I find VAX's version numbers a pain in the ***.
> 
> Version numbers are a BRILLIANT idea, sorry folks ! I have a symbol set up
> to do a RENAME *.*;* *.*;1 (after a PURGE of course) just to keep the

I think they are really annoying too (ps. you can make that a RENAME *.* *.*);
they make accessing files just too niggly. I am sure it is great, in that it
means you don't lose old copies of a program by accidentally saving new ones,
unless you specify that you want no backups when you create the directory. I
like to be able to save old copies if _I_ want to, not delete them if I don't
want them.

> Enough slagging off for now. 10 characters for ADFS *is* far too small.
> I think somewhere around 30 or 40 would keep me happy - a new "V" (verbose !)
> format for RISC OS 3.00 perhaps ? :-)

It is. Surely however, you could superficially get around this in the Desktop
by rewriting the ADFS Filer, so it gave files id numbers or something instead
of names, and then had a file (like the Mac desktop file. Bleech.) which had
the corresponding names for id numbers. That'd be fun to write, wouldn't it.
Although the problem is really for use with the CLI; how about rewriting the
ADFS yourself someone? (Keeping compatibility with the Acorn ADFS would be
a big problem tho'...; that is one thing, if anything like this was done, it
would _have_ to be backwards compatible to an extent; otherwise you would get
major problems with obsolete A3000s I suspect, which would make a _real_
implementation of it quite difficult... And how many programs limit the
filename to ten characters _themselves_?)

T.