Re: for i in *
Bruce Sass wrote:
> > But, this trouble is easily avoided with double quotes and on the flip
> > side, spaces make things much more readable.
> > IMeanIt'SNotLikeWeDon'tUseSpacesInNormalWriting.
> > And-I-have-yet-to-see-somebody-who-replaces-all-spaces-with-dashes-or-dots.
> > See.what.I.mean?
>
> "I/don't/think/you/would write/text like/this"
>
> Is it one path or three?
Okay, it took me about five minutes and a dozen re-readings to figure
out, why it could be three paths and not two. I would only see the
space between "would" and "write". Well, I'm pretty stoned right now,
so please be patient with me.
Anyways, for me, I still read this as one path, but I admit that reading
this text in an e-mail is different to reading it in a script. So, you
might have a point with the following:
> It may just be many years of not using
> spaces in filenames that has me seeing three paths, even though I've
> known for the same amount of time that filenames can contain spaces
> and the quotes would seem to indicate that it is one path... but I
> think it has more to do with our wetware naturally wanting to break
> things up into groups, and a blank space being a natural candidate to
> base a division on.
>
> It could be an efficiency issue.
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!
--
Viktor Rosenfeld
WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/
Reply to: