Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: question about plugins .rock
Re: question about plugins .rock
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:11:25 +0100
At 11:52 01/07/03 +0200, you wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, BlueChip wrote:
> > I also gave some reasoning in my original post, but it has been <snip>ped!?
>You named a few examples of other three-letter extensions, no real reasons.
Argh! Just said, I was gonna stop posting in this thread! D'oh
Sorry, my point was not made clearly enough ...My list was by means of an
illustration that our entire project, the source, the firmware and the
files it operates upon are filename.three ...hence to introduce a
filename.four serves only to break our own standard.
> > Finally, it's nice to be able to type "dir" and not get a bunch of gargabe
> > filenames - such is what us M$ users have to suffer when the file extension
> > goes over 3 characters :(
>? Surely it supports long file names too?
nope! - M$ command prompt sucks!
>I'm FOR long extensions.
Well then why don't we go for "filename.rockbox-plugin"?
>I hate to cripple things in Rockbox due to inferior operating systems.
Do you really think that making the filename one character shorter will
"cripple" your Jukebox?
I didn't realise that it would have such a dramatic impact. Maybe there is
something I have overlooked?
Received on 2003-07-01