you of course know that the big difference in unix and other
systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed
a tools-based approach which was popular for many years.
Not that type of "types." I gave an example (which Charles Forsyth found to
be a bad one) to set the types of "types" apart. I mean "types" as in named
pipes ("special" files) versus regular files. In my experience which is
limited to "modern" UNIX clones, i.e. Linux and *BSD, you can distinguish
between a number of file "types" and decide what to do accordingly. You can
tell a directory, from a (character or block) device, from a link, from a
regular file. These same "types" could, and have been, be used to represent
some details of the underlying resource.
--On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:11 PM -0500 erik quanstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why shouldn't there be file "types" to
help better represent the details of an underlying resource?
you of course know that the big difference in unix and other
systems of the day was that files did not have type. this allowed
a tools-based approach which was popular for many years.
- erik
