Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: question about plugins .rock
Re: question about plugins .rock
From: TP Diffenbach <rockbox_at_diffenbach.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:41:13 -0400
Quoting Mike Holden <rockbox_at_mikeholden.uklinux.net>:
> BlueChip said:
> > Anyway, I shall comment no more on this subject, my vote has been placed
> > in favour of a more 'classic' file naming convention :)
> I prefer the work "antiquated" over the word "classic" in this case!
One downside to a four charcter extension is that it increases the chance the full file name may have to be scrolled or clipped on the Archos display.
On the other hand, .rock is more descriptive as less ugly than .rck
Since people seem to feel strongly about this, how about using either of .rock or .rck (or .rbp for "rockbox plugin"), and then we can go back to "traditional" religious wars, like "(emacs|vi) is better than (vi|emacs)" or "tabs vs. spaces" or "const vs. #DEFINE".
-- Archos FM has a Rockbox!Received on 2003-07-01