----- "Jonas Bähr" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 07.01.2010 um 15:22 schrieb Pierre Wieser: > > ... > > ----- "Jonas Bähr" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> > >> "Path" should not be unspecified by default but rather default to > >> "%d" > > > > I agree that "Path" should better have a default value. > > But not sure a variable default is a good thing. > > I'd rather make the home directory the default. This would appear > > as closer of usual Unix standards... > > I don't think this is a good idea. If I execute "ls -l > some_file" I > expect some_file to be in the current directory, not in my home. I > can't name you any standard here, but from my experience "some_file" > is always synonym to "./some_file". I have not seen any case where > it's interpreted as "~/some_file". > That's why I strongly suggest "%d" as the default for the working > path.
Well, yes, I agree with you that in a terminal I expect the commands I type do refer to the current working directory. Nonetheless, when I open this same terminal without specifying anything, the current working directory is in my home. Don't you think your argument might be seen as a bit biased ? IMHO, a better argument to choose current directory would be that when we right click on an item in a file manager, we already have a current working directory. It could make sense to choose this same working directory as a default for "Path". But maybe this is what you meant ? From another point of view, this default directory is not thought to address files, but to run a program. I'm afraid many programs may (badly) suppose that their running directory is writable, or in some way, "owned" by the runner. Last I must admit that I'm a bit relunctant to have a default directory which depends of the place where user happens to click. Do you have any opinion about that ? Regards Pierre _______________________________________________ Thunar-dev mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/thunar-dev
