Re: NSFileManager and aliases
Re: NSFileManager and aliases
- Subject: Re: NSFileManager and aliases
- From: Charles Srstka <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:47:42 -0500
Apparently the e-mail that this is replying to was *just* over the size
limit. Hopefully the moderators will decide to post it anyway.
Otherwise, I'll have to resend it in multiple parts...
On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 06:24 PM, Ondra Cada wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2002, at 12:31 , Charles Srstka wrote:
Sorry for the length of this reply - I figured that one really long
message would be better than a thousand short messages cluttering up
the list.
Actually, my answer can be quite short:
(i) if aliases really used path first and FSRef *only if there is
nothing on the path*, I would prefer them to symlinks for the GUI
myself!!! They don't, though (actually, I do believe they are better in
OS9, but it would not get us farther than saying how nice was Workspace
Manager ;)))
(ii) if they could automagically behave as softlinks to their paths
when acessed through standard API, there would remain no problem with
them altogether!
Brilliant, we've found common ground. Life is good when hot topics don't
descend into flame wars... :-)
The only remaining question seems to be why the hell Apple did not do
that ages ago?!?
Can't answer this one for you, especially since they already have the
code for (i). Oh well.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/
> NeXTStep had the ability to have a different icon when the folder was
open?
So far as I can remember -- which goes back to '92 or so -- it had,
always.
And the icons supported alpha channel, incidentally; that's no Quartz
invention either.
I could be wrong about this one, because I never made any icons for
8.5+, but I believe that the icons in that system had alpha channels, in
fact using the same icon format that is currently used (but not using
the larger size icons).
> So did Classic Mac OS, so why doesn't OS X have this?! I always kinda
figured it was a NeXT
> thing to have the same icon in both cases
Actually, there is pretty small number of cases when NeXT GUI was less
luxurious than OS Classic one. Not that there are none, mind you, but
they are quite rare.
Well, this is a matter of opinion. IMHO, Classic was *very* luxurious in
lots of little things, many of which NeXTSTeP or MacOS X don't have in
as good of a form, such as the whole alias/fsref thing, dragging and
dropping a System Folder to move it to another disk, booting from a CD
with almost full functionality...
I'm sure NeXT had a lot of neat, unique things as well. We should both
accept that each OS had lots of little niceties that the other didn't.
Maybe then, we can persuade Apple to include all the little niceties
from both OS's, and we would really have a dream system...
> and that someone decided to go with that instead of the Mac way...
what the hell?
Yup, "what the hell" seems to be the leitmotiv of using OSX :))) At
least from an NeXTStep user's perspective...
I really hate to agree with you, but it does mystify me that they
removed a feature present in not just one, but in *both* OS's and opted
for Windows behavior instead when there was no apparent advantage to
doing so...
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.