The answer to that seems obvious. A single bit could determine
whether
or not an attribute is transient or more permanent.
So now our attributes have an attribute.
How kewl is that?
What about the state of the attribute's attribute:
do you copy that when you copy the attribute?
Is it optional or mandatory?
What's the default, Kenneth?
As has been stated before,
it's then non-extensibility of the file system and file access
protocols that makes them wonderful.
Poor analogy:
the file interface is like having a standardised range of nuts and
bolts:
you can build wonderful things with them simply;
attributes is like having loads of optional options on your nuts and
bolts
that you don't need and just get in the way.
Finally, to argue that files are not objects seems silly. They ARE
objects.
"You're merely confounding the issue by playing a naive semantical
game":-).
Files are objects in the same sense that C-style arrays-of-characters
are string objects.
Should I search the archives for boyd for my entertainment :-)
You could do that.
Alternatively, you could keep on talking about <spit>file attributes</
spit>:
I can sense him spinning already.
If this nonsense goes on he'll probably start channelling through
some poor unfortunate random 9fan sometime soon.
I don't know ...
9fans is so full of noise these days ...
If it's not C++ it's eye candy and if it's not eye candy it's file
system abuse.
It's the best OS in the known universe:
why can't people try to improve it instead of making it look like
all the other pukebucket OSes out there?
(Exeunt left mumbling and shaking head).
DaveL.
P.S. Did you mean "transient" ("lasting only for a short time")?
