Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: question about plugins .rock
Re: question about plugins .rock
From: Brian Wolven <Brian.Wolven_at_verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 12:07:28 -0400
TP Diffenbach wrote:
> Quoting Mike Holden <rockbox_at_mikeholden.uklinux.net>:
>> BlueChip said:
>>> Anyway, I shall comment no more on this subject, my vote has been
>>> 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".
How about .box? (it's a container for a plug-in, right?) Or was that
already used for something else?
And the vi|emacs war is over. Vi won a long time ago. Really. =P
Received on 2003-07-01