> No (more on that below). For mainframes, I believe you are right in > assuming that storage was a premium. But I believe even back > then they had a 128 character alphabet. So upper/lower text was available. > I just think on mainframes, they took the extra effort to 'ignore' case in > the file system. When Unix came along, I think they were 'lazy' and > did not make the file system (or code compilers) case-insensitive.
Charlie, I think Hal said this, but IBM mainframes from the beginning were based on EBCDIC which does allow upper/lower case, but early keypunches didn't support keying in lower case. I agree with you completely that the Unix convention of differentiating on case is ridiculous. I see absolutely no benefit from a file named ABC.TXT to be different then abc.txt or AbC.txt. That's dumb. I think part of the frustration expressed here is that VFP will sometimes force upper case filename extensions when it's unexpected, and that's confusing. Bill > -Charlie _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
