Date : Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:05:32 +0100
From : pete@... (Pete Turnbull)
Subject: Spitting expletives
On 27/07/2010 04:07, Rick Murray wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 01:33, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>
>>> .bas is the standard extension for textual representation of BASIC (*any*
>>> BASIC) code. If some application decide to stupidly associate themselves
>>> with it and try to execute it, that's their stupid fault.
>
>> I'm with Jonathan. .bas is the accepted extension for all sorts of
>> BASIC files, and using something else is only going to cause confusion
>> elsewhere.
>
> This is, however, a bit like saying that double-clicking &FFF files
> under RISC OS should not open it in !Edit (system default) or !Zap (etc)
> if it has subsequently hijacked the runtype. Instead you should load
> your editor, and then load the file into that.
I don't think so. If the filetype is &FFF, that's not executable, so
you run something that handles it. All this sort of stuff was worked
out and accepted decades ago, starting with Xerox Stars. My real point,
though, was that if you start changing extensions to suit a personal
system, sooner or later something will bite you.
> How do you "run" a non-runnable file?
For things that aren't executable, like text, or an image, you run
something that handles it. In the case of a text file, that's
editor-of-choice. In the case of a BASIC program, it would logically be
the interpreter of choice.
> On the other hand, there is a lurking Epic Fail in blindly assuming that
> .bas means a BASIC file. True, it does, but when you get to the bits and
> bytes, that's about as useful as saying .exe is an executable file, and
> lumping in 6502 code, &FF8, some ELFs, and a couple of Amiga programs
> too. Well, they're all executables...
True. Which is why UNIX is better :-) My pet hate is Windows assuming
everything with a .doc extension must belong in Word.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York