At 05:03 2009-09-01, Stephen Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Gene Wirchenko<[email protected]> wrote:
> > At 02:34 2009-08-31, Andrew MacNeill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>I think a smarter design would have been that if you do NOT have files
> >>with similar names, then hide the extensions because the Type should
> >>explain it - but otherwise, show it.
> >>
> >>It would be one of those natural behaviors that no one would notice
> >>until it was pointed out and they would say "gee, thanks"
> >
> > I would consider it to be flaky behaviour. When I want the
> > filename, I want the filename, not sometimes the filename and
> > sometimes the filename with the extension.
>Or just set it the way you want to and be done with it.
Exactly. I was replying to the so-called smarter design suggestion.
As to the subject, many annoyances are petty things, because,
besides the annoyance, there is the thought "It would not have taken
much for them [whoever that might be] to do this right [however
defined]. Instead, I have to put up with this nonsense [stronger
word probably used]."
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
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
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** 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.
