Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:57:49 -0700 From: Greg Shenaut <greg@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ALT-<sp> (Was: how to make 'for' understand two words as a single argumen) Message-ID: <200110022357.f92NvnS08486@thistle.bogs.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:05:04 %2B0300." <20011003020504.A16924@hades.hell.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20011003020504.A16924@hades.hell.gr>, Giorgos Keramidas cleopede: >Greg Shenaut <greg@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote: >> >> I just throw out the idea--as for where to enforce such a convention, >> I agree that the file-system definition may not be the best place, >> but it might be the *easiest* place (spaces could be silently mapped >> to 0xa0's). > >Please don't even think about it. When I write a space, I mean a space, and >silently doing things behind my back, is something I have not been used to >expecting from Unix. Right. Easiest is not necessarily best, in this case for exactly your reason. If you want a space in a filename, the Unix tradition clearly favors your having one. But you have to admit, space is a character that has caused many problems in Unix filenames, because of the other Unix tradition of space-delimited word record handling. I usually use an underscore, myself, if I want a space-like separation in a filename, but I could (and have) used 0xa0 for a similar purpose. Just out of curiosity, what would be an instance where you have wanted a space in a filename and wouldn't have been satisfied with 0xa0 instead of 0x20? Greg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110022357.f92NvnS08486>