Hejsan! > Okay, so what you're saying is that you prefer efficient parsing of a > script, while I prefer the aestheticy (sp?) provided by spaces. > Obviously, there's a trade-off between the two, and we emphasize > different aspects. So there are some points to the arguement that > Spaces In Filenames(tm) is a Bad Thing(tm), but my suggestion of > improved readability is also valid and therefore one could argue that > Spaces In Filenames(tm) is a Good Thing(tm). > > Now, how is that for a compromise, eh? Damn, am I good. Peace > brothers, peace!
So how about these little_small_underscores in filnames. In my opinion they come closest to a plain space, and you can get really used to them, e.g. after a while you see a "_" as " ". And you don't have the problem, that you use a character, which is normaly or by accident interpreted by the shell as the end of a file name... It just avoids problems like [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> mkdir test [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> cd test/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> mkdir 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> touch "1/2 3" 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> find . ./1 ./1/2 3 ./3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> find 1 -type f 1/2 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> find 1 -type f | xargs rm rm: cannot remove `1/2': No such file or directory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> find . ./1 ./1/2 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test> Huh, where has the file ./3 gone? Sure, there are posibilities to work around that (-print0), but it is just one example of certain side effects you have too consider _if_ you use spaces in filenames. It's just (IMHO) more secure not to use them... Cheers, Martin
