Bruce Sass wrote: > > But, this trouble is easily avoided with double quotes and on the flip > > side, spaces make things much more readable. > > IMeanIt'SNotLikeWeDon'tUseSpacesInNormalWriting. > > And-I-have-yet-to-see-somebody-who-replaces-all-spaces-with-dashes-or-dots. > > See.what.I.mean? > > "I/don't/think/you/would write/text like/this" > > Is it one path or three?
Okay, it took me about five minutes and a dozen re-readings to figure out, why it could be three paths and not two. I would only see the space between "would" and "write". Well, I'm pretty stoned right now, so please be patient with me. Anyways, for me, I still read this as one path, but I admit that reading this text in an e-mail is different to reading it in a script. So, you might have a point with the following: > It may just be many years of not using > spaces in filenames that has me seeing three paths, even though I've > known for the same amount of time that filenames can contain spaces > and the quotes would seem to indicate that it is one path... but I > think it has more to do with our wetware naturally wanting to break > things up into groups, and a blank space being a natural candidate to > base a division on. > > It could be an efficiency issue. Okay, so what you're saying is that you prefer efficient parsing of a script, while I prefer the aestheticy (sp?) provided by spaces. Obviously, there's a trade-off between the two, and we emphasize different aspects. So there are some points to the arguement that Spaces In Filenames(tm) is a Bad Thing(tm), but my suggestion of improved readability is also valid and therefore one could argue that Spaces In Filenames(tm) is a Good Thing(tm). Now, how is that for a compromise, eh? Damn, am I good. Peace brothers, peace! -- Viktor Rosenfeld WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/
