Peter Foldiak <Peter.Foldiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:This is kind of like explaining to people around the office that they could ever possibly need a disk drive of more than 10mb back in 1982 or so. I could not convince them then, Peter, you cannot convince this guy now, just spend the time coding it instead. Peter, you expect people to understand the value of features they have never used. Works for some of them. Only some of them.
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 14:51, Horst von Brand wrote:
I was suggesting this idea mainly form XML files, where the tags define the parts clearly.
Use a XML parsing library then.
But namespace unification is important,
Why? Directories are directories, files are files, file contents is file
contents. Mixing them up is a bad idea. Sure, you could build a filesystem
of sorts (perhaps more in the vein of persistent programming, or even data
base systems) where there simply is no distinction (because there are no
differences to show), but that is something different.
Are you saying you'd rewrite xml to put separate objects in separate files? -
and to unify the namespace, you
have to use the same syntax. I guess you disagree with me on that. (If
not, how would you do it?)
I'd go one level up: Eliminate the distinctions that bother you, not try to
patch over them.