Date   : Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:14:08 GMT
From   : jgh@... (J.G.Harston)
Subject: Spitting expletives

Rick Murray wrote:
> PS: Just because something has been broken since 1982 is no reason to
>      not look to fixing it.

So I should go through 500M of software and rename all the BASIC
files from name to name/basic, and change all the programs from
CHAIN "name" to CHAIN "name/basic" ?

It's not broken, which is why it doesn't need fixing.

Phill Harvey-Smith wrote:
> I think the problem is that Jonathan is using an archemedes which does
> not IIRC have the no extension problem that widows does, so it's not
> broken as far as he is concerned.

I'm using a Master 128, an A5000 and Windows XP. I don't work this
way because it's something I've decide on, but because that is how
the world is. A Russell-format tokenised BBC BASIC program on disk
has a name that looks like "name/bbc" (Acorn) or "name.bbc" (CPM,
DOS, etc). Live with it. A Wilson/Acorn-format tokenised BBC BASIC
program on disk has a name that looks like "name" (Acorn) or
"name." (CPM, DOS, etc.). Live with it. The earth's atmosphere is
21% oxygen. Live with it.

Rick Murray wrote:
> Pray tell - what's so bad about giving a file an extension? Under RISC

Data interchange.

If I save a program on my Master to a DFS disk, I'll typically do
SAVE "prog". Why should I be forced to do SAVE "prog/something"
just because I happen to have selected DOSFS instead of DFS. The
whole point of the Acorn system is device independance. It's
irrelevant what filing system you use, SAVE "prog" works whether
you're using DFS, NET, DOSFS, ADFS, whatever.

Put that DOSFS disk into another machine, that just happens to be
an Intel-based machine running a DOS-based disk system, and the
same file will appear to be called "prog.". It's how the world is.
You may rail against it, but that just how the world exists.

-- 
J.G.Harston - jgh@...      - mdfs.net/jgh
In the beginning was the word, and the word was... "Hey you!"