Re: List Folders bug?
Re: List Folders bug?
- Subject: Re: List Folders bug?
- From: kai <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:47:22 +0000
On 16 Mar 2006, at 17:22, Jon Pugh wrote:
Invisible used to be defined as "having the invisible metadata bit
set" back in the classic days.
Now invisible is defined as "the invisible bit, the name begins
with . or the name is listed in the .hidden file in the same
directory".
I believe some code, like "list folder", only uses the first two
criteria.
Thanks, Jon. I appreciate the technical clarification - which
certainly helps to explain why 'list folder'/System Events/'info for'
should return the results they do.
Just for the record, the part I'm having some difficulty with is why
such objects should be deemed "visible" in the first place. One
presumes that the decision to omit them from the .hidden file list,
and name them without a "." prefix, was the result of some rationale.
However, since I can't actually see the items in question, I can
equally see no obvious reason for attributing "visible" status to
them. Unless someone can explain that, I'm inclined to consider it
buggy logic. (And yes, I'll be perfectly willing to file a report to
that effect.)
All smacks a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes, if you ask me... ;-)
---
kai
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden