From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Fco.J.Ballesteros MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [9fans] blanks in file names Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 11:53:14 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bf671a8c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 After reading all the post about this, and thinking about it I think it's more clean to use different characters for space and blank within a file name — as someone said before. The reason why I think so is that it would simplify the library and at the same time avoid problems with quoting. For example, although replica uses %q, I ended up deleting a file name 'chk, because somehow replica got confussed. It's true that I could have tried to avoid the confussion and fix the bug; but I think this suggests that it's not so easy to quote things. On the other side, there're two places where file names get blanks in: - from foreign systems - locally created files On both places it'd be easy for the user to type Alt-spc, perhaps more simpler than it'd be to write 'blah blah'. Now, does anyone from the Labs think otherwise, and if so, what's the reason. I'd like to learn from this mistake, if my current view of the problem can be considered as so. In any case, I agree that blanks are here to stay and I'd like Plan 9 to handle then as nicely as it handles ☺ⁱ⁲. thanks ⁱ Why did ☺ get into unicode? ⁲ Why didn't :-( get in then? (Did they read TPOP?).