Paper?

[JDługosz]

I wonder why the new feature is called "paper".

I did not find the writeup to be groundbreaking as claimed. A directory full of symbolic links would work for all programs, not just within the XYplorer program.

[Stef123]

I wonder why the new feature is called "paper".

Maybe because it's not the real thing - only a list on paper, that you can tear up, re-write, keep for reference, have different versions of...

A directory full of symbolic links would work for all programs, not just within the XYplorer program.

I don't know if Windows allows symbolic links to individual files. Setting it up for folders is not exactly what I call intuitive and user-friendly, not to mention that symbolic links always get in the way, they are kind of hardwired and not nearly as flexible and versatile as paper folders in XY.

[kunkel321]

And it is "ground breaking," because, as we know, paper beats rock.

[Marco]

http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... us#p107358

[JDługosz]

I don't know if Windows allows symbolic links to individual files.

The default file system documented full symbolic links in Vista. Before that there were "shell links" that, like the paper list, worked within Explorer but programs opening such a file would see the undocumented shotcut data. NTFS always had hard links for files, which was necessary for POSIX.

000368.png (21.39 KiB) Viewed 1826 times

[Stef123]

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of this.

[autocart]

Having the paper folders only available in their own "paper:" space also is a limit one needs to get used to.

I would like it better if they would integrate with the folder-browsing in a real seamless way. Namely that I could create a paper-folder inside a normal folder (in XY, of course with some kind of differentiation, e.g. its own icon) and browse it (in XY) also that way. The "paper:" space is nice but it should be an alternative extra method of managing them, giving me an overview over all of them somehow.

Well, I just thinking since the day is long.....

EDIT: But I do wonder:
Why did you, Don, re-invent the wheel, and not implement improved support for the windows libraries instead?