RE: file naming

["Creager, Robert S" <CreagRS@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>]

I think I'll agree with Chris.  A site letter and some sort of unique 7
digit date/sequence.  (gets flame suite on) Drop the extension all together.
This will allow for easy extension adding for the DOS folks.  The folks
writing software will likely not have problems either using all the header
information provided, or renaming the files themselves if copying to a HD.

Is the horse dead yet? I'll stop beating now.
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Albertson [mailto:chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:38 PM
> To: jbush@pucp.edu.pe; tass@listserv.wwa.com
> Subject: Re: file naming
> 
> 
> jbush@pucp.edu.pe wrote:
> > 
> > arne
> > 
> > i think the *.fit, *.fts is an absolute must.  a number of 
> good programs
> > require the identification . .  to go and add the extension 
> to 80 or more
> > files makes it very undesirable, to see the least that it 
> is very time
> > consuming
> 
> The problem is if they are all called .fts then they work for you
> but my program likes .fits (four leters) so someone always has to
> re-name them
> 
> Renamming is triveal and only takes seconds to re-name thousands of
> files even in DOS' command.com you can write loops
> 
>     foreach P (*)
>       mv $P $P.fit
> 
> If your OS allows links then try "ln -s $P $P.fit" and give the
> file two names.
> 
> 
> In UNIX shells one can make a one line wrapper script with something
> like "fitsviewer $1.fits" so that "fits" gets appended to the 
> filename.
> 
> I don't like the idea of encoding anything in the filename.  THat's
> what fits headers are for.
> --
>    Chris Albertson             
>    chrisalbertson90278@yahoo.com
>    Redondo Beach, California
>    home: 310-376-1029
>    cell: 310-990-7550
>