in my opinion,
to the human eye:
it looks uglier (at least to me), have to look with more attention if i'm looking for something that appears in the middle of that string, etc.
Imagining [cr7 - f NTSC - m - t +3 - tr en-partial Mr.X - Mr.Y] for a worst example would make me confuse trying to figure out.
Second, it would probably make it harder to identify correctly the things, in other words flags could be confusing since 2 flags could mean different things, having even more forms for the same flags means that they will be harder to found/understand and can be confused with more info etc.
And for extracting info from dats / parsing with tools it will became even harder / more prone to mistakes (this is the more important part in my opinion).
Concluding, yes it would make some sets smaller (you gained 15chars in your example) but i think that we should keep it "as simple as possible, but not simpler"
TNC is already questionable in some parts (as i already told idoru
) so there is no point in making it a bit worst.
Looking for "[tr" word in dats now gives you the translated ones (and some more info flags too i guess), with that you would have to look for "[tr" and "- tr" (and get some more info flags, also group names (ex: "(...)[cr blah - troo]") and other occurrences of " - tr" (in title for example).
But that's just my opinion
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bippym
even if it was crft +12 flashtro it'd be better!
I think it is pointless duplicating certain info!
|
that creates problems and would reduce the cases where it could be used, like [cr2], [f PAL], [m bootblock], [t +12], [tr pt]...
how would it compress? [cr2fmttr PAL bootblock +12 pt flashtro]? how would one know if that is a more info or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid
Hmm, as the seperation character I would suggest '|' (ASCII code 124). So it would be '[cr|f 680x0|t +12 Flashtro]'.
|
The problem with your suggestion is that "|" is not a valid char, you can test it trying to rename any of your files with it