Stand by for another long post...apologies to others but I'm trying to explain this to zer0:
zer0 wrote:That was a supplementary wish. The essence of the first 2 items and the topic's title is about issues regarding the displaying of information in tabs.
And this issue deals specifically with what is displayed in a tab so it matches the topic title perfectly!
zer0 wrote:There is NO problem to solve.
YES, there is! Sorry, but just because you may not understand/recognize that the problem exists doesn't make it go away...
zer0 wrote:The fact that XY does not display a drive letter in the tab header is not a problem (an inconvenience, but even at best), because if 'Display folder name only' is ticked then that's all you'll get - the name of a folder.
It IS a problem when you have the same named folders on multiple drives which occurs often and easily...And we have NOT said that the existing option needs to be changed, but rather that a new variant needs to be created.
zer0 wrote:I have suggested 2 quite valid ways in which you can display the name of a tab to avoid getting mixed up if they are indeed called the same.
And I'm saying for the upteenth time that those ways are
not workable and/or practical!
zer0 wrote:I have also suggested that path compression should be improved if a user is not happy, but it appears that users are not willing to improve this particular behaviour.
Because while path compression may or may not be ideal, it's just NOT related to this issue! We
don't want the path compression option...we just want the lowest level folder
and the highest level qualifier in the path...no more...no less...just those two parts of the path...they provide all the data we need to know where we are when operating in this mode, ok?
zer0 wrote:Enhance means improve and having this option would not improve XY.
That's nice for you to say but you've admitted in other threads that you don't use some of the common features of XY, as have I, but different ones...so how do you know it won't improve XY?...for example, should I try and tell jacky & others that "oh, you don't need that enhancement/improvement for your script cause I won't use it and don't see the need"? No way! Unfortunately, that's the impression that you're giving here.
zer0 wrote:Having the suboption that is being suggested here will do the opposite and limit the scope of 'Display folder name only'. The whole point of having that option is to shorted the name of the tab header so more can be displayed in available space. Implementing the suggested suboption will go against this principle.
Maybe that's a problem, because we may have referred to it as a sub-option when in fact, it may be more correctly an alternate option choice instead....there are two choices right now: Display folder name only -or- not. We want choice #3: Display drive & folder.
zer0 wrote:I agree that XY is great, but adding a feature for the sake of just 2 extra symbols (drive letter and a semicolon) appears to be a waste to me.
It may appear a waste to you but not to Stephan & myself (and maybe others)...adding approx two extra characters will make the tab header much more meaningful and useful while still keeping it a minimal length...and since you appear to believe that having the drive letter in a tab header isn't needed, why not thus suggest that we remove it always? That's silly, you say? Well, if you agree that having it there is needed, then why say that it's not needed in this case?
zer0 wrote: It's not possible to make XY exactly to everyone's needs. There are times when users have to accept the XY ways or consider the workarounds. Don said that, if anything, compression algorithm is what needs improving and I support him in this. It's too tempting to deviate along the path of suggesting a modifier to another feature to achieve the desired effect and discarding the underlying issue of path shortening.
I agree we can't make XY fit everyones needs but here's a simple way to make it more productive without affecting anyone else, other than one more option in Config that they can ignore if they wish...and path shortening/compression is not the issue we are dealing with...that's an unrelated issue to this desired option as it deals with showing
full paths or as much as possible thereof, whereas we want only two fixed parts of the path.