Scott Dial wrote:
> In general, this is not true. FAT16 can address a 2GB device and I can
> think of at least one embedded system I am working with that does not
> support FAT32. If anything, at least .pyzip reduces to .pyz in 8dot3
> (whereas .py.z reduces to .z *yikes!*). However, I think it
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 15/07/07, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, it seems that memory sticks and USB thumb drives are
>> often formatted with FAT because that's the closest we have to a
>> universal file format.
>
> I think they tend to use FAT32 (the ones I've seen do), which does
> supp
For me, .pyz is fine. Python has more or less a trademark on .pyx
extensions, and one more fits well. I think we should stick with them.
Confusion of .pyz with .py.z is not an issue with Windows users, though I
can understand how it might be for *nix users. On the other hand, pyzip is
quite
>> Also, it seems that memory sticks and USB thumb drives are often
>> formatted with FAT because that's the closest we have to a universal
>> file format.
Paul> I think they tend to use FAT32 (the ones I've seen do), which does
Paul> support long filenames and more than 3 cha
On 15/07/07, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, it seems that memory sticks and USB thumb drives are
> often formatted with FAT because that's the closest we have to a
> universal file format.
I think they tend to use FAT32 (the ones I've seen do), which does
support long filenames and more t
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Anders J. Munch wrote:
>>
>> How about .pyzip instead? To make it more obvious, and not
>> mistakable for .py.z.
>
> Indeed. Is there any need to restrict extensions to 3 characters these
> days? Last time I experimented with this on Windows, it seemed to
