In reply to me R Parlington wrote... >> Wouldn't it then be easier for the user if the file type was >> contained as legible text rather than some number? > >Probably. But why bother making it easier for the user? :) >You've got `file' if you want to know what type of file it is >(well, when someone ports it...)
Umm, isn't it supposed to be the software written for the user, and not the other way round? The machine should accomodate us. We shouldn't have to accomodate the machine. >> Why not? Wouldn't you be able to give better descriptions to the >> file types this way instead of cramming everything into silly three >> letter names? > >Probably, but how are you going to fit a reasonable number of 32.8 >filenames on the SAM's screen? :) I actually intended 32 charachters for the total filename, thus 24 for the name and 8 for the extension. Fits nicely on a mode 4 screen and as Ian said, mode 3 will do nicely too. Stefan Drissen aka Solar Flare of Entropy E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Drissen) S-mail: Zevende Herven 6, 5232 JZ 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
