On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 19:22 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 19.10.2005, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Alexander Larsson:
> > On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:02 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure they are "ordinary", but they are surely folders, and act
> > in that way in every normal sense. The only way they are different is
> > that they support extra "features". (Well, maybe not "fonts".)
> >
> > I guess I don't see the huge advantage of not saying that the burn:
> > toplevel folder is a folder.
>
> I still disagree. It just feels wrong, because a real folder directory,
> not an abstract concept. However, I'm attaching a new patch with the
> trash, burn and fonts code removed.
Looks good to commit.
I'm not sure what you mean by "real". In what way is e.g. burn:/// less
real than burn:///folder/? trash:/// is even more similar to a real
folder in that it also persists on disk across reboots.
I'd say, if you can get and put files in it and manage them like in
regular directories (rename, delete, etc) then they look like folders to
all outward appearances, and thus should be marked folder. I you use
this definition then fonts:// goes away though, since it does magic with
filenames and stuff that breaks renaming and deletion of some files...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He's a one-legged ninja card sharp with no name. She's a virginal communist
cab driver prone to fits of savage, blood-crazed rage. They fight crime!
--
nautilus-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
