In message , Lewis
writes:
In message J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes:
[]
This whole issue is just another bit of fallout from the Windows
nonsense of *requiring* a file extension.

What nonsense might that be? Windows (and DOS) don't require an
extension; OK, they normally _use_ one (and I definitely agree with all
who think hiding them's a bad idea and certainly shouldn't be the
_default_), but there's no _requirement_.

Of course it is a requirement. Quick, go change a .exe to have no
extension and see what happens when you try to run it, Or change any
file with an extension and then try to use it as intended.

I'm not sure how to run a .exe without an extension, but that doesn't
stop me having the file. Certainly, I can have say a Word file without
..doc and open it in Word, or a text file without .txt and open it in
Notepad. If by "as intended" you mean "by double-clicking on it", that's
what extensions are _for_; but they're certainly not a _requirement_.

Your comment that they are required would only make sense if, in some
other OS you are familiar with, you can have filenames without
extensions that still open in the appropriate application by being
double-clicked on (or equivalent operation in that OS).

The most obvious example being, I think, the hosts file.

The only example. Or it not only, the one in a million example.

It's the only one I could think of where _Microsoft_ do something with a
file without an extension on its name. That doesn't mean anyone else
among us can't have such, if they want to.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

pu gnikcab yb naem uoy tahw siht sI