🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8821@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) writes:
> This rather long posting is:
>    1)  An observation about the conventional use and abuse of filenames.
>    2)  An plea to Apple to prevent things from getting worse in System 7.0.
>    3)  A few suggestions as to how that could be done.
> 
> BACKGROUND
> 
> A previous posting to this newsgroup suggested that System 7.0 should allow
> filename pattern searches, so that one could, for example, find all
> Stuffit files by searching for filenames ending in ".sit".  Applications,
> scripts, or people could then use filename pattern-matching to select and
> process a group of related files.
> 
> The goal is good, but I think the technique of matching filename patterns
> is the *WRONG* way to get the job done.  Apple, please DON'T!

    Right or wrong doesn't matter to me (I don't want to make ethical
judgements on how others names files :-), but I suspect we use 
our computers for different things.  For example, I often program using 
the C language.  Most C source files are given a name ending in ".c" and
most C header files are given a name ending in ".h"--these conventions
may be right or wrong, but they are all-pervasive.  I, for one, want
to at least try to port source files between machines and operating
systems.  One of the major benefits of C is that C compilers exist
for just about every computer (you can get UNIX and C on a Cray
supercomputer, you can get C on a parallel Transputer and you can
even get C on an MS-DOS PC).

So, why do I want filename-based searches on the Mac?  Because
every day on UNIX I use filename-based searches and I find these
searches invaluable (e.g., grep socket *net*.c ).  Other times
I want to back up all the source files (based on the principle that
I can always re-compile to generate the executable applications
if I just have the source), using *.c, *.h and so on.

Anyway, one of the benefits of a command-line interface is the
ability to use wildcards in filename-based searches (which is one
of maybe two things that are easier to do on a PC than on the
Mac).

So, Apple, please DO!


> A filename should simply be a meaningful name that tells a person a file
> contains, or, if it's a program, what it is or does.  That's ALL it should be.
> Trouble is, it has become common practice to "encode" additional
> information into filenames, like the file's type, its version number,
> whether it has been compressed, and the like.  It's not unusual to see
> files with cryptic names like "xmodem17.hqx".  Filenames aren't the right
> place to store all that information, 

Sorry, but this is common practise.  Right or not, this method is
used.  One reason may be that listing the names of the files in
a directory is often the most information you will get about the
contents of the files.  UNIX does have a "file" command that will
try to guess the type of a file (e.g., executable, ascii text, c program,
awk script, etc.), but still most people use the file name method.

> and pattern matching based on nonstandard
> naming conventions isn't a reliable file lookup method.

Right, but it works most of the time.

> WHAT I'M AFRAID MIGHT HAPPEN
> [deleted due to space]

You have a lot of good arguments, but I feel filename-based searches
would add a lot to the already-nice Mac interface. Perhaps Apple's
user interface guidelines could help limit abuse of this feature.

In the end, though, the features you ask for would be nice, but I
would still want filename-based searches.

Have fun,
-Eric


-- 
Eric F. Johnson, Prime Automation, Inc. 
415 W. Travelers Trail, Burnsville, MN 55337 USA.  Phone: +1 612-894-0313. 
erc@pai.mn.org    - or -   bungia!pai!erc
(We have a very dumb mailer, so please send a bang-!-style return address.)