Aborting creation of new folder

[PeterH]

These days it happened several times that I created a new folder, and when thinking about how to name it (still in rename-mode) I realized that I didn't need it at all

What to do? Press Esc!
But sorry: now I don't have no folder - I have a new folder "New Folder", that I never need!

So for me it would be best for XY, that when escaping rename mode of a just created (and so always empty) folder, then delete it - just as if it would never have existed?
If someone needs the new folder - renamed or not - he presses Enter, and everything is fine.

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

The same might apply to creation of new files - I didn't think about that till now. Seems it doesn't happen to me as often as with folders

[rhoelzl]

I would agree that this would be a really nice addition.

[j_c_hallgren]

What to do? Press Esc!
But sorry: now I don't have no folder - I have a new folder "New Folder", that I never need!
I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

You know, that's one of those little things that I'd never thought of as "could be better handled" but now that you've described it, I'd definitely have to agree! Same thing has happened to me a nbr of times...

[zer0]

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

Strictly-speaking, no. It may be perceived as part of, but it is not. Say you create a folder by pressing Ctrl + N, 2 things happen. One -- a new folder that is called "New Folder" is created. Two -- this folder is put into a rename mode. Whether you do any renaming or not, pressing Esc will only take you as far back as completion of thing One. This is not unreasonable as, when in rename mode, all Esc does is cancel whatever rename took place. If having that new folder is really undesirable, just click Undo and it will be gone.

P.S. Sorry if I came across as really pedantic there. Perhaps this functionality, which I am not against, will be possible when CEAs surface from depths of the future.

[admin]

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

Strictly-speaking, no. It may be perceived as part of, but it is not. Say you create a folder by pressing Ctrl + N, 2 things happen. One -- a new folder that is called "New Folder" is created. Two -- this folder is put into a rename mode. Whether you do any renaming or not, pressing Esc will only take you as far back as completion of thing One. This is not unreasonable as, when in rename mode, all Esc does is cancel whatever rename took place. If having that new folder is really undesirable, just click Undo and it will be gone.

Perfect answer!

[PeterH]

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

Strictly-speaking, no. It may be perceived as part of, but it is not. Say you create a folder by pressing Ctrl + N, 2 things happen. One -- a new folder that is called "New Folder" is created. Two -- this folder is put into a rename mode. Whether you do any renaming or not, pressing Esc will only take you as far back as completion of thing One. This is not unreasonable as, when in rename mode, all Esc does is cancel whatever rename took place. If having that new folder is really undesirable, just click Undo and it will be gone.

Perfect answer!

Sorry - from my point of view it's a very bad answer! It prefers technical reasons above usability and quality of a user interface! (Especially I'm puzzled it's from zer0.)
(If this would be OK, every bad interface would be OK, as it would be for the (current) program flow...)

I do not want to create a file "new file", and then possibly rename it. I want to create a file with a name I select. And if I cancel it, I don't want just to cancel a part of it. Without respect to "machine instructions" or "internal program flow"...
(And if anyone would really want to use the default name, he simply could accept it by pressing "enter" instead of canceling with Esc.)

Assume you would add a command "create V2", acting as I said. And then ask, if someone would have a problem if you delete the old "create" - do you think anybody had? I don't think...

There might be some reason *not* to do this, but I don't think it's the one described here.

[zer0]

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

Strictly-speaking, no. It may be perceived as part of, but it is not. Say you create a folder by pressing Ctrl + N, 2 things happen. One -- a new folder that is called "New Folder" is created. Two -- this folder is put into a rename mode. Whether you do any renaming or not, pressing Esc will only take you as far back as completion of thing One. This is not unreasonable as, when in rename mode, all Esc does is cancel whatever rename took place. If having that new folder is really undesirable, just click Undo and it will be gone.

Perfect answer!

I do not want to create a file "new file", and then possibly rename it. I want to create a file with a name I select. And if I cancel it, I don't want just to cancel a part of it. Without respect to "machine instructions" or "internal program flow"...

In this case, your best bet would be to use New > New Folders from the context or Edit menus (command ID #243). It allows you to specify a folder's name prior to its creation. From a technical standpoint, you can rename a folder so it appears not to have a name by calling it a hexadecimal for null, but null != (not equals) nothing. Further, to my knowledge, no programming language has a method to create a new folder without a mandatory parameter that defines its name.

[PeterH]

I think renaming here is a part of the creation, and escaping it *means* escaping the complete creation, doesn't it?

Strictly-speaking, no. It may be perceived as part of, but it is not. Say you create a folder by pressing Ctrl + N, 2 things happen. One -- a new folder that is called "New Folder" is created. Two -- this folder is put into a rename mode. Whether you do any renaming or not, pressing Esc will only take you as far back as completion of thing One. This is not unreasonable as, when in rename mode, all Esc does is cancel whatever rename took place. If having that new folder is really undesirable, just click Undo and it will be gone.

Perfect answer!

I do not want to create a file "new file", and then possibly rename it. I want to create a file with a name I select. And if I cancel it, I don't want just to cancel a part of it. Without respect to "machine instructions" or "internal program flow"...

In this case, your best bet would be to use New > New Folders from the context or Edit menus (command ID #243). It allows you to specify a folder's name prior to its creation. From a technical standpoint, you can rename a folder so it appears not to have a name by calling it a hexadecimal for null, but null != (not equals) nothing. Further, to my knowledge, no programming language has a method to create a new folder without a mandatory parameter that defines its name.

What should I say? So let me ask...

From view of the user-interface, (i.e. what you and I see from XY,) would you think that after Escaping the (re-)name it would be more useful, if no new folder "New Folder" would remain? Or can you give a reason why it would be preferable that it exists after Escaping?

And if you think it's preferable for it *not* to exist after Esc, can you technically explain, why it can't be possible, for example, to delete it if rename was Escaped? Or why there can't be another solution?

As the situation of Escaping the (re-)naming of a new folder arises from an unplanned(!) error, I'm not really able to use another interface (like New/New Folders) in these situations.

[mwb1100]

I would agree with PeterH. I also understand the technical rationale for the current behavior, but I'd prefer if XY cleaned up a canceled new-folder-create.

It's obviously not a deal killer to leave alone, after all - like j_c_hallgren - I never really thought it should be other than the way it works, even though I found it annoying. However, now that I know how it *should* work, it'll be really, really irritating. Implementing this would be one more thing that XY does better than Explorer.

[j_c_hallgren]

I think part of this would obviously involve just exactly when the Esc was pressed as to what it should do...because if you've already started to name the folder and then Esc, you may just have done a typo and don't want to have to create again...but if you're in that "just created - ready to rename" stage, then Esc could have as option a way to cancel both rename & create.

BTW, just a personal request: I know it takes a bit more time but lately I've seen a nbr of extended quotes of quotes of quotes/etc...could we please all try and either just reply w/o quote or trim it to most needed parts? It makes it longer and harder to see some prior replies that aren't part of the quote esp on a smaller screen. I'll try and do it myself. Thanks.

[admin]

I'm totally unexited about this feature idea, but I don't have the time to list the many reasons that speak against it. So please don't waste your energy in this thread any further. It will lead to nothing.