Re: Translations of folder names - two proposals

[Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 13:06 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 17:35 +0000, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 12:19 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > 
> > > You're saying "the right UI decision is to expose the implementation
> > > model"
> > 
> > If we have an FDO lib to hide implementation details then that wouldn't
> > really matter for non-script implementations. I would definitely prefer
> > to use such a library in my code than concern myself with symlinks and
> > how they're implemented.
> 
> That doesn't seem related to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that
> the way the user believes it works need not have anything to do with how
> it really works. Alan is saying that we can't "lie" to the user, they
> have to see how it really works. (Which, ad absurdum, means we need to
> hand them an assembler... but even not going ad absurdum, it is
> generally considered a first principle of design that the implementation
> should not leak into what the user has to think about.)

Yes but I'm saying thats irrelevant - the user should not care how it
works or more accurately it should "just work". 

As for scripting thats a non-desktop issue so knowing how it works in
that case is their problem not ours.

> 
> > What does seem to matter is the implementation is script friendly so
> > symlinks and environment variables are good possibilities for
> > implementation.
> 
> Or an even better possibility for script friendliness: "just use
> $HOME/Desktop"

Unless I have desktop = Home. Sorry, I am opposed to hardcoding
directories in that manner cause it kills future possibilities for the
desktop ergo my desire for an FDO lib.

jamie.



> 
> Havoc
> 
> 
>