Re: [9fans] acme question + diffs for kfs, fs and plumbing

["rob pike, esq." <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 110 bytes --]

99% only.  You'd still have the problem of names that arrive surreptitiously,
such as in tar files.

-rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3446 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 89 bytes --]

Renaming them would get us quickly up to 100%, with no need
to fix anything. Am I wrong?

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1779 bytes --]

From: "rob pike, esq." <rob@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme question + diffs for kfs, fs and plumbing
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:00:09 -0400
Message-ID: <a5b373bbdc70b762911c083da046ca5f@plan9.bell-labs.com>

> Glub! My first view of all this blank thing was just to forbid
> them and maybe rename them just to avoid them (They make things more
> complex for our programs). 

I encounter a dozen blank-containing names a day, but only from
interacting with foreign systems.  I find the current setup covers about
80% of what I need; fixing a few other simple things would probably
get us to 99%.  But upon reflection I don't think it's wise to push for
blanks to be first-class citizens in file names.  As long as we continue
to use linguistic rather than graphical interfaces to most of our tools,
that would be a mistake.

-rob