# Why was "Shorten filenames to 64 characters" removed?
**URL:** https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887
**Category:** General Discussion
**Created:** [April 20, 2011, 9:14am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887 "2011-04-20T09:14:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2011, 9:14am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/1 "2011-04-20T09:14:35Z")
[Mp3tag Development Build Status](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/455/1)
CHG: removed action type 'Shorten filenames to 64 characters'.
Florian, I'd be interested to know why this was removed. Did it become unsafe somehow?
---
### Author:  [@Lee\_Dailey](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/Lee_Dailey)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/2 "2011-05-01T02:04:29Z")
howdy chrisjj,
i think it was in response to this thread ...
[/t/11716/1](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/11716/1)
take care,
lee
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/3 "2011-05-01T11:16:04Z")
Thanks. I see there a report of a bug, a suggestion the feature be removed (but no good reason) and a statement the feature was removed.
Which is disappointing - that can break scripts that were working fine.
---
### Author:  [@DetlevD](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/DetlevD)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2011, 12:11pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/4 "2011-05-01T12:11:53Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> Thanks. I see there a report of a bug, a suggestion the feature be removed (but no good reason) and a statement the feature was removed. Which is disappointing - that can break scripts that were working fine.
Note, we speak about a temporary developer release.
'chrisjj' are you an opportunist?
Is it really breaking one of your actiongroups?
Please explain what the action "Shorten filenames to 64 characters" can do, could do, with more intelligence than the function $left(%\_filename\_ext%,64) can do it also.
Why should Mp3tag provide an action dialog, for just a trivial thing like creating a substring of fixed length?
As it turned out, the function is somewhat buggy and outdated.
There were no complains over many many years of existence of this action module!
This obvious behaviour of Mp3tag users is a clear indicator, that this action was either never understood or never been used in practice.
DD.20110501.1615.CEST
---
### Author:  [@Lee\_Dailey](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/Lee_Dailey)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/5 "2011-05-01T18:19:48Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> Thanks. I see there a report of a bug, a suggestion the feature be removed (but no good reason) and a statement the feature was removed.
>
> Which is disappointing - that can break scripts that were working fine.
howdy chrisjj,
it seems from other mentions of the function that it sometimes did very odd things. _unpredictable_ odd things. i suspect unpredictable was the reason for dropping it.
as DetlevD mentioned, you can use the non-dev version for the time being. you can also attempt to talk Florian into leaving it in the system. that last seems rather doubtful, but he DOES listen.
another option is to lay out a few of the file names with before and after examples and ask for help defining a function to get what you need in your situation. that sound like your best bet.
take care,
lee
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [May 3, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/6 "2011-05-03T23:10:01Z")
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> Note, we speak about a temporary developer release.
I thought this feature removal was proposed for production release. Please do tell me if I am wrong.
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> Is it really breaking one of your actiongroups?
No, because I am not using that version.
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> Please explain what the action "Shorten filenames to 64 characters" can do, could do, with more intelligence than the function $left(%\_filename\_ext%,64) can do it also.
I don't know or care. It is irrelevant.
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> Why should Mp3tag provide an action dialog, for just a trivial thing like creating a substring of fixed length?
Because that is a defined part of the program's behaviour - just see the Help.
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> As it turned out, the function is somewhat buggy and outdated.
Buggy code should be fixed or deprecated.
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> There were no complains over many many years of existence of this action module!
> This obvious behaviour of Mp3tag users is a clear indicator, that this action was either never understood or never been used in practice.
Or was never problematic for most users.
---
### Author:  [@DetlevD](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/DetlevD)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/7 "2011-05-04T01:11:01Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> I thought this feature removal was proposed for production release. Please do tell me if I am wrong. ... Because that is a defined part of the program's behaviour - just see the Help. ...
I hope so, I cannot find a reference to this deprecated action in the current manual.
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> ... No, because I am not using that version. ... I don't know or care. It is irrelevant. ...
Because you are not affected by the removement of a senseless action, why do you complain?
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> ... Buggy code should be fixed or deprecated. ...
Deprecated software should be removed, that was my intention.
Please study the reference of the Joliet File System, there is no consequently pure 64 character filename limit, isn't it so?
DD.20110504.0514.CEST
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [May 6, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/8 "2011-05-06T19:31:55Z")
> Because you are not affected by the removement of a senseless action
If it were senseless, it would not be present.
> Deprecated software should be removed, that was my intention.
Deprecated function should be marked such NOT be just removed, since existing scripts will could ref to them.
> Please study the reference of the Joliet File System, there is no
> consequently pure 64 character filename limit, isn't it so?
I don;t care about Joliet. I have used this function regardless of Joliet.
---
### Author:  [@DetlevD](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/DetlevD)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/9 "2011-05-07T00:46:41Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> ... Deprecated function should be marked such NOT be just removed, since existing scripts will could ref to them. ... I don;t care about Joliet. I have used this function regardless of Joliet.
Because you are not able to say predictable how this function has been worked, the possibly needed workaround is trivial:
$left(%\_filename\_ext%,64)
... or should it be ...
$left(%\_filename%,64)
DD.20110507.0450.CEST
Edit. Spelling mistake corrected.
DD.20110607.1710.CEST
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/10 "2011-05-07T01:02:29Z")
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> the possibly needed workaround is trivial
That is little consolation to a user whose scripts are silently broken by this update. It may be much work before he finds he even needs to workaround in the script.
---
### Author:  [@DetlevD](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/DetlevD)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/11 "2011-05-07T03:38:52Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> That is little consolation to a user whose scripts are silently broken by this update. It may be much work before he finds he even needs to workaround in the script.
I am sure, when releasing the next official full version of Mp3tag, Florian Heidenreich will give a note in the manual and a recommendation how to use an action 'Format Value' likewise as the removed action module.
And for the unbelievable case, when the this action module will not be removed, because you have claimed it to need it for your life, I can live with that like before:
I do not use it, because I do know, that it does not help, and I do not know, how it works.
DD.20110507.0743.CEST
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [May 7, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/12 "2011-05-07T08:40:32Z")
> I am sure, when releasing the next official full version of Mp3tag, Florian
> Heidenreich will give a note in the manual
I really hope he'll do better than that. Such a breakage to script compatibility needs the app to deal with old-version scripts.
> you have claimed it to need it for your life
You are mistaken, Detlev. But what I do need for my life isto be able to trust that Mp3tag upgrades do not silently break scripts.
---
### Author:  [@flaminio](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/flaminio)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/13 "2011-06-03T22:15:32Z")
2.49 is out, and "Shorten filenames" is gone.
This does break one of my scripts, but I'll replace it with DetlevD's suggestion and get over it.
---
### Author:  [@flaminio](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/flaminio)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/14 "2011-06-07T00:41:38Z")
> [@DetlevD](#):
>
> Because you are not able to say predictable how this function has been worked, the possibly needed workaround is trivial:
> %left(%\_filename\_ext%,64)
> ... or should it be ...
> %left(%\_filename%,64)
OK, I must be an idiot, 'cause I can't get this to work. Is this not right?
_[removed picture with wrong action]_
'Cause it doesn't seem to be doing what the old "Shorten..." action used to do. Indeed, it doesn't seem to do anything.
---
### Author:  [@mjcm](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/mjcm)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/15 "2011-06-07T01:58:47Z")
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 10:09am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/16 "2011-06-07T10:09:33Z")
> [@flaminio](#):
>
> This does break one of my scripts
OOI, how do you know it breaks only one? E.g. does it give a warning when the function reference is encountered?
---
### Author:  [@flaminio](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/flaminio)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 11:55am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/17 "2011-06-07T11:55:51Z")
> [@Mike\_nl](#):
>
> 
Ah, I see the error I had been making. DetlevD mistyped %left instead of $left in his earlier post, and I had been simply copy and pasting it all along. Once I saw yours, the typo was obvious. Thanks!
---
### Author:  [@flaminio](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/flaminio)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/18 "2011-06-07T11:59:10Z")
> [@chrisjj](#):
>
> OOI, how do you know it breaks only one? E.g. does it give a warning when the function reference is encountered?
I should probably say "Action Groups" rather than scripts -- I know it breaks only one because I used it in only one. And the action simply disappeared, so no warning or error was generated; it just didn't happen because it was no longer there.
---
### Author:  [@chrisjj](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/chrisjj)
#### Post date: [June 7, 2011, 12:08pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/19 "2011-06-07T12:08:42Z")
> [@flaminio](#):
>
> I know it breaks only one because I used it in only one.
Then you don't know it breaks only one. You know only that it breaks at least one.
> [@flaminio](#):
>
> And the action simply disappeared, so no warning or error was generated; it just didn't happen because it was no longer there.
Very poor, Florian. It should at least alert the user.
---
### Author:  [@Altobere](https://community.mp3tag.de/u/Altobere)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887/20 "2011-08-06T20:28:03Z")
I try to apply the replacements options for removed function, but **I not obtain positives results**
Please, somebody can explain with details like replace "Shorten filenames to 64 characters" for another option, for me was an useful option, very pity the the decision to remove. ☹
[Next page](https://community.mp3tag.de/t/why-was-shorten-filenames-to-64-characters-removed/11887.md?page=2)