| ID: | 5738 |
| From: | rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
| Date: | Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:12:17 +0200 (CEST) |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal |
| in-reply-to: | 5736 from ka...@aspodata.se |
On Sun, 10 Jul 2022, karl@aspodata.se wrote: >If there was/is a proper dependancy finder program, then >this question would be moot and the program shouldn't have >to suggest an extension at all. I think we are getting off-track again. What we have here is a shorthand: the program does not have to present one more dialog box to ask for the file format (slowing down your fast lane workflow) if it can make a good guess from the file name on the first(!) save. That is the place where this has any code implication and that place can not be substituted with any kind of file format detection becuase we do not yet have any file format. You are not forced to use this guess logic (just do a save-as and explicitly set the format). But since some of us do use this, and since all other formats have this stupid "extension" thing, the guessing algorithm has to go by that, which means we have to have an "extension" that this same guessing algorithm can identify as "the user wanted lihata". So no, we can't use a different file name format, we can't use content, we really have to guess by file name ending. Regards, Igor2
Reply subtree:
5738 Re: [pcb-rnd] file name policy change proposal from rn...@igor2.repo.hu