Re: file coloring

[Pavel Roskin <proski gnu org>]

Hello!

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, bulia byak wrote:

> > I have to agree with Andrew - "extension" is a foreign word on UNIX.  
> > (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc/2002-October/msg00102.html) Some
> > users don't understand this word, as the above paragraph shows.
> 
> Sorry I could not understand how this relates to the proposed patch.

I meant this phrase:
  BTW, "File associations"  is more right name for "Extension File".

Extension is an concept from MS DOS.  Not that I want to change the manual
and the menu right now.

> This is something I can understand even less. The proposed patch allows
> to color file types by editing a config file, or through a dialog at
> runtime. So the result would be the opposite - no more patches, never.
> Everyone is able to define their own extensions and colors without
> recompiling. What is wrong with this?

Check this thread:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2002-July/msg00097.html

Just because users are free to modify config files it doesn't mean they
won't request changes in the default config files.

Another example:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2002-February/msg00025.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2002-July/msg00073.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/mc-devel/2002-July/msg00080.html

> >  And we only have 16 colors, some (most!) of which are already taken
> > (black - pipe, magenta - device, green - executable, red - core etc).
> 
> Oh my, it never occurred to me that 4 is "most!" of 16.

I didn't try to send a complete list.

> Well, of course I'm not going to try to persuade the developers that
> this is good, if they are so determined otherwise. I'm just sharing my
> experience. If anyone is interested, please write to me and I will share
> the patch.

Try to persuade Russell, who believes that you can already do this in
4.5.55.  Or work on the features that users actually request.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin