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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article ,
Andre G. Isaak wrote: text scripts are interpreted by a shell or other interpreter. in some cases, a script can be compiled to binary, but that's the exception, not the rule. Yup, but that doesn't make the use of "program" when talking about scripts incorrect. That's because in such a context "Program" is used in contrast to "data". IOW, the concept is "A script is a type of program." only in the very loosest sense of the word. I think you are conflating the word 'program' with 'executable'. that's the accepted meaning of the term, however, these days, most people say app, short for application. If I write a program in a file called main.c, I would consider 'main.c' to be a program even though it is not an executable until compiled and linked. that's a source code file used to generate an executable program. A script is still a program, though since scripts are generally interpreted it will have no corresponding executable. it's a script. |
Ads |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:31:16 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? There is no selling involved, anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of computers will understand that distinction with no trouble at all, since the two statements are in no way related. Your ignorance and refusal to learn might be an issue, however. -- It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought...should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:09:34 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Char Jackson wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. -- Char Jackson |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:48:59 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote: In message Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 20:31:16 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? There is no selling involved, In that case, I conclude that you believe what you wrote, which means you don't have a clue. Thanks for playing. -- Char Jackson |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:09:34 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Char Jackson wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. Yep, you are full of nonsense. You obviously know nothing at all about file systems. I already posted a specific example of a way to access a file without using a path, but that probably confused you. Even teh original poster troll admitted that there were file systems that didn't use paths at all. Paths were an innovation in computer systems, before minix added paths no computers had paths or any sort of hierarchical file system. The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. -- Sometimes the gods have no taste at all. They allow sunrises and sunsets in ridiculous pink and blue hues that any professional artist would dismiss as the work of some enthusiastic amateur who'd never looked at a real sunset. This was one of those sunrises. It was the kind of sunrise a man looks at and says, 'No real sunrise could paint the sky Surgical Appliance Pink.' Nevertheless, it was beautiful. --The Thief of Time |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Lewis
wrote: The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. not only no paths, but no files. it was as you say, a database of objects. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 07:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote: In message Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:09:34 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Char Jackson wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. Yep, you are full of nonsense. You obviously know nothing at all about file systems. I already posted a specific example of a way to access a file without using a path, but that probably confused you. Even teh original poster troll admitted that there were file systems that didn't use paths at all. Paths were an innovation in computer systems, before minix added paths no computers had paths or any sort of hierarchical file system. The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. Nice try, dude. Move the goalposts much? -- Char Jackson |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In message Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 07:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: In message Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:09:34 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Char Jackson wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. Yep, you are full of nonsense. You obviously know nothing at all about file systems. I already posted a specific example of a way to access a file without using a path, but that probably confused you. Even teh original poster troll admitted that there were file systems that didn't use paths at all. Paths were an innovation in computer systems, before minix added paths no computers had paths or any sort of hierarchical file system. The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. Nice try, dude. Move the goalposts much? There is no goalpost moving. Please read the thread before responding again, as you obviously didn't do so as yet. -- Lisa Bonet ate no Basil |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: [...] for mac os 9, they claim: File and folder names may be up to 31 characters in length that too is false. the limitation is finder, not mac os 9. [...] Thanks for the clarification and the reference to other docs. But once again you ignore context. From the users' POV the 31-character length is what matters, not what goes on under the hood. what goes on under the hood is what's being discussed. So your claim that it's incorrect misses the point. In fact, your claim is both correct and incorrect. I'll leave oit to you to resolve the paradox. there is no paradox. the article is wrong, and you snipped the example that's *really* wrong. |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:24:31 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote: In message Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 07:45:36 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote: In message Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:09:34 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Char Jackson wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. Yep, you are full of nonsense. You obviously know nothing at all about file systems. I already posted a specific example of a way to access a file without using a path, but that probably confused you. Even teh original poster troll admitted that there were file systems that didn't use paths at all. Paths were an innovation in computer systems, before minix added paths no computers had paths or any sort of hierarchical file system. The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. Nice try, dude. Move the goalposts much? There is no goalpost moving. LOL Then I guess we're done here. It's hard to have a conversation with someone who has no concept of context and continuity, not to mention very limited concept of the topic being discussed. -- Char Jackson |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: A pathname is not needed to specify a file is not the same thing *at all* as "a filename is enough to specify a file". Are you seriously trying to sell that? Put down the shovel. The hole you're in is deeper than you think. he's correct. nonsense. Yep, you are full of nonsense. You obviously know nothing at all about file systems. I already posted a specific example of a way to access a file without using a path, but that probably confused you. Even teh original poster troll admitted that there were file systems that didn't use paths at all. Paths were an innovation in computer systems, before minix added paths no computers had paths or any sort of hierarchical file system. The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. Nice try, dude. Move the goalposts much? There is no goalpost moving. Please read the thread before responding again, as you obviously didn't do so as yet. The thread is about filenames in Mac-OS-X. The subject is about changing in filenames. The sub-thread is about forbidden characters in OS-X. The sub-sub-thread is about how to specify a file. Both sub-thread and sub-sub-thread are about Mac-OS-X. Your tidbits about the history of filename lists or their functional equivalents is interesting, but not relevant. what you're calling 'tidbits' are exactly relevant because they support the various claims made along the way, including that pathnames are not needed. in other words, they're not 'tidbits' at all, but rather supporting evidence that you're wrong, which explains why you are trying to dismiss them as irrelevant tidbits. apparently the concept of no pathnames is new to you. perhaps you might try to learn about it. Like nospam, you change the rules (in this case, the scope of the context) whenever confronted with proof that you've, er, made a mistake. nobody has changed the rules. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. not only no paths, but no files. it was as you say, a database of objects. I know city that has no streets, only boulevards and avenues. what you *don't* know is how the newton worked, and instead of learning about it, you come up with some random response. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: But once again you ignore context. From the users' POV the 31-character length is what matters, not what goes on under the hood. what goes on under the hood is what's being discussed. I'm sorry that you are under that impression. More than once the difference between the human and the OS level has been mentioned. That was so even before I made that context explicit with "what the human sees" and "what the OS sees". I don't know if it was you or Lewis that remarked that filenames were primarily for humans. The implied contrast is that they are 9at least some of the time) irrelevant under the hood. file names are for the computer, *not* humans. humans want to find specific content, e.g., find all photos of mary taken last year or review the letters to elon musk from last month. the actual internal file name makes *no* difference whatsoever to a human. direct file system access is a relic of the past, when computers were not as powerful, forcing users to deal with its inner workings, needing to manually organize content, and in some cases, in ways the computer requires (e.g., extensions). fortunately, those days are gone. computers are far more powerful now and direct file system access is no longer needed in most situations, eventually going away entirely except in very specific circumstances. the limitation is finder, not mac os 9. The statement you dispute is true WRT to finder, and false WRT to OS-9. So your claim "it's false" is both true and false. as written, it's not true. finder limits it, but other apps might not. finder is just another app, although it does have some functionality not available to third party apps. you are also ignoring the *other* item i mentioned, that files in os x cannot begin with a dot, which is very, very wrong. as i said then, anyone making such a statement should *not* be writing software for macs in any form, and i'll extend that now to any software on any platform. not only is it possible to have files beginning with a dot in mac os x, but there's even a preference for finder to show them: http://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/u...-files-shown-m ac-os-x.jpg https://cdn3.macworld.co.uk/cmsdata/...-Hidden-Files- 800_thumb800.jpg https://coderwall-assets-0.s3.amazon...re/file/443/Sc reen_Shot_2012-08-29_at_1.04.19_PM.png |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: Your assumptions about what I know and don't know are wrong. Of course, I've forgotten most of that stuff. One does tend to forget stuff one doesn't use. And one doesn't bother mentioning details that one assumes are known to one's respondent. Or that are irrelevant in the context of the conversation. i'm going by what you write. you said pathnames are required to find a file. they are not. proof has been provided. Like nospam, you change the rules (in this case, the scope of the context) whenever confronted with proof that you've, er, made a mistake. nobody has changed the rules. I apologise for using a different metaphor than you're used to. I'll use the one that you know: Every time you someone calls you on an irrelevant or mistaken comment, you shift the goalposts. also wrong. Lewis's claims are true, of course, but they're irrelevant. Hence supporting evidence is irrelevant, too. they're very relevant. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Can a Macintosh person tell us how to change the name of a file?
In article , Wolf K
wrote: The Newton used a database of objects for file storage, no paths involved at all. not only no paths, but no files. it was as you say, a database of objects. I know city that has no streets, only boulevards and avenues. what you *don't* know is how the newton worked, and instead of learning about it, you come up with some random response. "Random response"???? My remark is not random. It was carefully constructed in the hope that you would have an Aha! moment, for once. i'm not the one who needs to have an aha moment. Whether you call them objects, or files, or acorns, or whatever, they are defined (delimited) chunks of data. but neither files nor path names, the topic under discussion. newton soups, as they were called, were *very* different than files. lumping both together means you don't understand the differences. ....snip... OK, I think I've widened the scope enough. translated: you've moved the goalposts. FYI, I read about the Newton way back then, but I've forgotten the details. So I refreshed my memory he https://www.researchgate.net/publica...erating_system that doesn't say a whole lot, plus finding some random link via google is not going to make you an expert about newton. i did more than read about the newton back then. i wrote several newton apps. in fact, within days after buying my first newton, i already had my first gig, thereby paying for said newton and then some. several other gigs followed. the newton was *way* ahead of its time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|