[Fwd: Re: [MacPerl] MacPerl to Unix]

[Gaspard Gendreau <Gaspard.Gendreau@esrin.esa.it>]

Gaspard

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from maes.esrin.esa.it by mail.cs.esrin.esa.it (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA22189; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:15:43 +0100
Received: from valhall.esrin.esa.it by maes.esrin.esa.it with SMTP id AA05369
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <gg1@mail.cs.esrin.esa.it>); Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:16:20 +0200
Received: from maes.esrin.esa.it by valhall.esrin.esa.it (4.1/SMI-4.1)
        id AA25146; Thu, 22 Aug 96 03:20:21 +0200
Received: from err.ethz.ch by maes.esrin.esa.it with SMTP id AA05365
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <Gaspard.Gendreau@esrin.esa.it>); Thu, 22 Aug 1996 03:16:15 +0200
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by err.ethz.ch (8.7.5/8.7.3/IISmaster-1.73) id BAA12499 for mac-perl-outgoing; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:26:37 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from smtp2.interramp.com (smtp2.interramp.com [38.8.200.2]) by err.ethz.ch (8.7.5/8.7.3/IISmaster-1.73) with SMTP id BAA12494 for <mac-perl@iis.ee.ethz.ch>; Thu, 22 Aug 1996 01:26:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from [38.12.163.29] by smtp2.interramp.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-irsmtp)
        id TAA26595; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:26:30 -0400
Message-Id: <199608212326.TAA26595@smtp2.interramp.com>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [MacPerl] MacPerl to Unix
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 19:26:30 -0500
X-Sender: pp000978@pop3.interramp.com
X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Larry Prall <larryp@interramp.com>
To: <mac-perl@iis.ee.ethz.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-mac-perl@iis.ee.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk

>Yes, it's not a native feature of the OS for unix/mac.  But it *is* native on
>one major platform (DOS) so it's a worthwhile "compatibility" feature to
>include, since filename.extension is a legal name format on the other OSes. 
>(Can anyone think of an example where it's not?  All the systems I can 
>think of,
>all the way back to the PDP-11 allow the use of an extension...)

Well, yes, probably so.  But...my old TRSDOS files had a 
'filename/ext.password:drive' syntax, and whenever you tried to create a 
filename.ext file, you created a file named 'filename', with a password 
of 'ext'.  So it had an extension, but not a dot-three extension.  Ah, 
well.  The good ol' days.