Hmmm who's Dave L? I thought I was Dave L, but this isn't me Dave L.
Super :-)
On 8/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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")?
>
>
