If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article s.com,
Wolffan wrote: I don¹t know what the max path length is on macOS. It appears to exceed 32,767 characters. I haven¹t attempted to test that. Have at it. HFS+ has no limit on path length, but I think macOS does. I don't recall what it is. Once you get past a few hundred characters worth of path, very few people care. they do when things break. |
Ads |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Lewis
wrote: There's actually some trickery going on here. Mac OS X "allows" slashes in file names, but they are actually represented internally as colons. No, you have that wrong. the Path Separator on HFS and HFS+ is the ':' and has been forever. that's what he said. Any colons in a filename are displayed as slashes by the Finder (but not the terminal), and the Finder won't allow you to use a colon in a filename. No, any slashes in a filename are represented to the unix layer as colons. that's what he said. This bit of oddness results from the switch from the switch from classic Mac OS to Mac OS X. Classic used colons as path separators and thus allowed slashes but not colons in filenames. When OS X was introduced, they opted to maintain the illusion that the allowable characters had remained the same. Nope. You have the details entirely wrong. he has it right. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Lewis
wrote: I don¹t know what the max path length is on macOS. It appears to exceed 32,767 characters. I haven¹t attempted to test that. Have at it. HFS+ has no limit on path length, but I think macOS does. I don't recall what it is. classic mac os didn't rely on path names to access files, yet another thing it got right. instead, it used a directory id and a file name (optionally a file id). path names could still be used, but there was rarely, if ever, a reason to do so. unfortunately, mac os x took a big step backwards and relies on path names in almost every case, as does any unix. move the wrong file and things will break, possibly even rendering a system non-bootable. as for length, from syslimits.h: #define PATH_MAX 1024 /* max bytes in pathname */ however, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...-what-is-the-m ax-path-length From actual testing on Mac OS X Yosemite, the max path length is 1016 characters. 1017 fails. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-20 3:23 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 5:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Lewis wrote: It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name I just this moment created a folder on the desktop: '2017/12/20 "/"test.' (The surrounding single quotes are not part of the name). In the Unix layer (i.e. from a bash command line), I see it as: '2017:12:20 ":"test.' Yes. You can see it as such because Apple decided to map the ":" and "/" characters to accomodate the ancient appleos files This has nothing to do with the actual file name being used. And that means that "/" is still forbidden as a filename character in OSX/MacOS |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 2017-12-20 5:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 3:23 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 5:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Lewis wrote: It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name I just this moment created a folder on the desktop: '2017/12/20 "/"test.' (The surrounding single quotes are not part of the name). In the Unix layer (i.e. from a bash command line), I see it as: '2017:12:20 ":"test.' Yes. You can see it as such because Apple decided to map the ":" and "/" characters to accomodate the ancient appleos files This has nothing to do with the actual file name being used. And that means that "/" is still forbidden as a filename character in OSX/MacOS Nope. A file name is what people name their files. And they can name them using a "/". Period. |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On 2017-12-21 01:28:10 +0000, Alan Baker said:
On 2017-12-20 5:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 3:23 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 5:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Lewis wrote: It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name I just this moment created a folder on the desktop: '2017/12/20 "/"test.' (The surrounding single quotes are not part of the name). He meant just using the / character in a filename - it has nothing to do with having any quote marks around it. In the Unix layer (i.e. from a bash command line), I see it as: '2017:12:20 ":"test.' Yes. You can see it as such because Apple decided to map the ":" and "/" characters to accomodate the ancient appleos files This has nothing to do with the actual file name being used. And that means that "/" is still forbidden as a filename character in OSX/MacOS Nope. A file name is what people name their files. And they can name them using a "/". Period. Saying the "/" is a forbibben character is a bit silly. The OS fiddling behind the scenes is invisible to the user (and irrelevant to most) and so the character is definitely allowed. The only normal character that macOS complains about in a filename is the ":", so that is the only one which is not allowed / forbidden. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Lewis wrote: In message s.com Wolffan wrote: On 2017 Dec 19, Lewis wrote (in article ): In upernews.com Wolffan wrote: On 2017 Dec 14, Your Name wrote (in ): I don't know about Windows, but Mac OS X can have at least four letter extensions (.tiff, .jpeg, .html for example). Windows no longer cares how long the extension is. Windows (and, I think, but I’m not certain macOS) cares only that the entire filename and dot and extension is 255 characters or less and that certain illegal characters, notably slashes, are not used. There was a problem where Windows had a max path of 255 characters, later 260 characters, but Microsoft was pulled trickery and there’s a path length maximum of 32,767 characters which can be extended if you really, really, REALLY want to go to a lot of trouble. I have a file on my Desktop named 11/22/63. I suspect that that's not how that file is seen by the system. It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong You have no idea what you are talking about. HFS documentation is available, or you can shelter in willful ignorance. -- And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time, lost in space, and meaning |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 5:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Lewis wrote: In message s.com Wolffan wrote: On 2017 Dec 19, Lewis wrote (in article ): In upernews.com Wolffan wrote: On 2017 Dec 14, Your Name wrote (in ): I don't know about Windows, but Mac OS X can have at least four letter extensions (.tiff, .jpeg, .html for example). Windows no longer cares how long the extension is. Windows (and, I think, but I’m not certain macOS) cares only that the entire filename and dot and extension is 255 characters or less and that certain illegal characters, notably slashes, are not used. There was a problem where Windows had a max path of 255 characters, later 260 characters, but Microsoft was pulled trickery and there’s a path length maximum of 32,767 characters which can be extended if you really, really, REALLY want to go to a lot of trouble. I have a file on my Desktop named 11/22/63. I suspect that that's not how that file is seen by the system. It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. At least since 1986. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name You are, of course as everyone who has ever used a Mac know, entirely 100% wrong. -- When you come to the fork in the road, take it |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 3:23 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Alan Baker wrote: On 2017-12-20 5:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: Lewis wrote: It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name I just this moment created a folder on the desktop: '2017/12/20 "/"test.' (The surrounding single quotes are not part of the name). In the Unix layer (i.e. from a bash command line), I see it as: '2017:12:20 ":"test.' Yes. You can see it as such because Apple decided to map the ":" and "/" characters to accomodate the ancient appleos files You keep repeating your ignorance. The path delimiter in HFS/HFS+ is ':' and always has been. The OS maps the : to a / for the Unix layer, but below *and* above the Unix layer the delimiter is the ':'. This has nothing to do with the actual file name being used. And that means that "/" is still forbidden as a filename character in OSX/MacOS Wallow in ignorance, I'm done giving you the facts. -- It would be a pretty good bet that the gods of a world like this probably do not play chess and indeed this is the case. In fact no gods anywhere play chess. They haven't got the imagination. Gods prefer simple, vicious games, where you Do Not Achieve Transcendence but Go Straight To Oblivion; a key to the understanding of all religions is that a god's idea of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Lewis
wrote: I have a file on my Desktop named 11/22/63. I suspect that that's not how that file is seen by the system. It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. At least since 1986. 1984. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name You are, of course as everyone who has ever used a Mac know, entirely 100% wrong. yep. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: I have a file on my Desktop named 11/22/63. I suspect that that's not how that file is seen by the system. It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. At least since 1986. 1984. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name You are, of course as everyone who has ever used a Mac know, entirely 100% wrong. yep. Seems to me there's some ambiguity (polite phrase) about "filename". not to anyone who understands the technology, there isn't. At one extreme, it means "The label the user creates/sees". At the other extreme it means "The string used by the OS to identify a file". In general, people assume these to are the same, but that ain't necessarily so. Hence the slanging match. there is no slanging match and what the user sees is the *only* thing that matters. files can also be accessed by inode (or similar) and not using the name at all. the fact remains that / is valid character in a file/folder name on a macintosh and always has been. period. anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong. proof #1: in finder, choose new folder and type 12/21/18. proof #2: launch text edit, type some text, choose save, and in the dialogue that appears, type test 12/18.txt for a filename. switch to finder and see the file with a / in the name, exactly as what was typed. unix apis (and unix apps directly built on them) do not allow /, so it's converted internally. mac apps are not unix apps. it's actually a lot more involved, with various exceptions along the way, but that's the quick summary. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Wolf K wrote:
On 2017-12-21 11:02, nospam wrote: In article , Lewis wrote: I have a file on my Desktop named 11/22/63. I suspect that that's not how that file is seen by the system. It is. the Mac has always allowed /'s in filenames. The only forbidden character in macOS is the ':' character. Wrong In what way is that wrong? That the Mac has always allowed "/" as a filename character. At least since 1986. 1984. It is forbidden as that in the unix layer. And actually, you can't create a file with a "/" as part of the name You are, of course as everyone who has ever used a Mac know, entirely 100% wrong. yep. Seems to me there's some ambiguity (polite phrase) about "filename". This is not relevant to the path separator which has always been : on the Mac and has never ever been / as the ignoramus keeps insisting. -- Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: You are, of course as everyone who has ever used a Mac know, entirely 100% wrong. yep. Seems to me there's some ambiguity (polite phrase) about "filename". This is not relevant to the path separator which has always been : on the Mac and has never ever been / as the ignoramus keeps insisting. Interesting comment, since it includes the hidden assumption that the pathname is not part of the identification-label of the file. it isn't. the pathname is a path to the directory in which the file is stored, one of several ways to identify it. But it can be, eg, when (as complained of in another NG) a picture-viewer steps through the files in a "library" by alpha-sorted pointers, so that the "next image" wasn't the one the user wanted. He wanted the next image in the source folder, but its filename allowed a gap in the alpha-sorting. It seems that the picture-viewer in question ignores the pathname, and sorts on the filename alone. Why? I infer that the designers didn't think of pathname as part of the file's ID. that's because it isn't. i don't know what the issue was in that particular thread, but typically, apps sort files by ascii order, which would put 10 before 2, while users want it sorted in numeric order, where 2 comes before 10. a workaround is to prepend numbers with leading zeros (02 would sort before 10, 002 before 100, etc.), but forcing the user to do that is obnoxious. unfortunately, there's a lot of ****ty software that does exactly that. That being said, I have no skin in this game, it's been almost a decade since I last owned a Mac. then you're not in a position to argue how it works and i doubt you understood things at the lowest levels that others here do. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Seems to me there's some ambiguity (polite phrase) about "filename". not to anyone who understands the technology, there isn't. Then why are/were you guys talking past each other? because some people make up facts as they go along and refuse to learn anything. At one extreme, it means "The label the user creates/sees". At the other extreme it means "The string used by the OS to identify a file". In general, people assume these to are the same, but that ain't necessarily so. Hence the slanging match. there is no slanging match and what the user sees is the *only* thing that matters. To the user, of course. But the programmer may, occasionally, have to be aware of quirks and weirdnesses.... of course, but programmers are users and can name their files with / in the name. they don't have a special exemption into the file system, nor do they have any additional restrictions. files can also be accessed by inode (or similar) and not using the name at all. ... such as the above. eh? the fact remains that / is valid character in a file/folder name on a macintosh and always has been. period. anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong. Quite so. in other words, you agree, yet you argue. proof #1: in finder, choose new folder and type 12/21/18. proof #2: launch text edit, type some text, choose save, and in the dialogue that appears, type test 12/18.txt for a filename. switch to finder and see the file with a / in the name, exactly as what was typed. unix apis (and unix apps directly built on them) do not allow /, so it's converted internally. mac apps are not unix apps. See, that's where the ambiguity comes in. When a character in a filename has to be "translated internally", then there are two filenames.... so no wonder people get confused. there is no ambiguity nor are there two file names. it's actually a lot more involved, with various exceptions along the way, but that's the quick summary. It's always more involved. That's why you have to be sure you're in fact talking about the same thing. let us know when you decide to do that. Have a good holiday. you too. |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: I'll spell it out for you: "The principle of including file-type (and other) metadata with the file instead of storing it elsewhere." (The "storing it elsewhere" part led to the argy-bargy about how Apple did/does it with "forks". Instead of with spoons.) I'm in favour of that principle, although user convenience may break rigid adherence, eg, by attaching file-type data to the filename. i'll spell it out for *you* (although i'm quite sure you *still* won't understand it): tl;dr - there is more than one type of metadata so there's no single answer to where it must go or should go, and in some cases, there are multiple options with various tradeoffs. Finally a sign that you got my point: metadata is about what is to be done (or not done, obviously) with the data. not necessarily. for example, the shutter speed used when a photo was taken, stored in exif data, doesn't affect what is to be done or not done with the photo. a song's album art, stored in an id3 tag, also doesn't affect what is done or not done with the song. Your discussion from here on in is nicely done, and helped me clarify "included in" and "included with". You don't state it explicitly, but metadata for system use is rarely the same as metadata for human use. so what? there's all sorts of metadata for all sorts of purposes, and where it's best stored can (and does) vary, even for the same metadata, depending on the particular task. Seems to me that it's where these uses intersect that there is the most uncertainty, and hence argument about where the data should go. the argument stems from lumping everything into one pile. earlier, you said metadata should be *in* the file, but there are numerous cases where it *can't* be and others where it depends on the goal of the software. Reading it, I note that "metadata" is a much richer concept than a cursory glance would suggest. It even includes data that you explicitly exclude from the concept. Why, I don't see, since what you exclude affects how the data is handled. what exactly have i explicitly excluded? I think the concept has grown away from the techs who invented it. you think a lot of things, few of which have any basis in reality. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|