Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

> > I see a problem with the proposed feature to put backup files to a
> > separate directory. Different files from different directories can
> > have identical names, and the backup file from editing one of them can
> > overwrite the backup file from another file.
>

I have not imagined this problem when I first asked for that feature.

FWIW, I have reported this suggestion at

http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=16060


> This is a real problem ; thus the spec of this new feature is in
> fact not clear...
>
> > I think this is not acceptable. With the current (emacs-like)
> > behaviour, this is not possible, because all files in a single
> > directory have distinct names, of course.
> >
> A possible workaround would be to name the ~ files using a dot : we would
> have foo and .foo~, for example. This way, the ~ file doesn't usually appear
> when using ls.

This is vim way of doing it. As soon as one starts editing a file, vim
creates a .filename.swp file which stores the latest updated
(autosaved) version of the file. The actual file is not overwritten
unless the user explicitly asks to save the file. Upon successfully
saving the changes, the .filename.swp file is deleted.


> 3. [PROBLEM] the ~ naming mechanism interferes badly with the
> shell : it doubles the number of .tm files that appear as
> an output of ls (or inside a file explorer under X) ; on
> the other hand, it disturbs the TAB completion mechanism ;
>
> But there are perhaps other problems : in particular, it would be
> interesting to know the problems met by other people ;
>
> Kamaraju : what are the things you dont like that leaded you into
> looking for a solution where the ~ files are stored in a separate
> directory ? Is it because of interferences with the shell (point 3
> above) or is it because something else ?

The above is precisely the problem. I personally do not like to have
multiple files in the same directory with almost similar
names(especially when these files are not always useful). This is one
of the reasons that drove me away from latex. Latex creates a
multitude of files *.tex, *.aux, *.log, *.dvi, *.bbl, *.blg, *.brf .
In texmacs it is all just one file .tm (except for the bibliography in
some cases). But the *~ files disrupts the TAB completion mechanism.

--
http://kamaraju.googlepages.com/cornell-bazaar

---

• store the backup files in a separate directory, Kamaraju Kusumanchi, 03/10/2006
  • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Henri Lesourd, 03/10/2006
    • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Andrey G. Grozin, 03/11/2006
      • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Henri Lesourd, 03/11/2006
        • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, David MENTRE, 03/11/2006
          • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Henri Lesourd, 03/11/2006
        • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Kamaraju Kusumanchi, 03/11/2006
          • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Kris Kuhlman, 03/11/2006
        • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Andrey G. Grozin, 03/12/2006
          • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Henri Lesourd, 03/12/2006
            • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, David MENTRE, 03/12/2006
              • Re: [TeXmacs] store the backup files in a separate directory, Kamaraju Kusumanchi, 03/12/2006

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.