version numbers

["Daniel L. Weinreb" <DLW@alderaan.scrc.symbolics.com>]

    Date: 24 Nov 87 11:37 -0800
    From: Dan Razzell <razzell%ubc.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>

    I don't know if that's the major disadvantage. I'd say it's nice to have
    backup copies of files, but not when it's achieved by hanging little warts
    on the end of the file names. Version numbers, and perhaps the older files
    themselves, should be hidden until asked for.

In all version-numbered file systems I've used, the user does not have
to type in the version number.  It defaults to "newest version".  So
they are "hidden" on input, if you see what I mean.  As for printing
file names, I think it would be confusing to suppress the version
numbers sometimes and not other times.  You'd end up with two ways to
print everything, which would result in strange inconsistencies.  For
example, would a file's name change when it ceases to be the latest
version?

What do you mean when you say that the older files should be "hidden
until asked for"?  It sounds like you're just saying that the default
version field for directory-listing commands should be "newest".  I
agree with this, and :Show Directory does that.  (Some of the older
directory commands, like the ones in the editor, don't, and I do think
they ought to.)

    But if you want an example of the worst way to use version numbers,
    check out the namespace editor.

I take it what you are really trying to say is "a file system with version
numbers is not a replacement for a database management system", which is
certainly true.  But then, neither is a file system without version numbers.