Yes, that is the best way of managing a name that is based completely on timestamp data and I considered implementing it in that way. However, I am trying to demonstrate a larger issue: how to format large complex strings in general. The point is that from the standpoint of readability it's almost always better to use a large single string formatter than a string concatenator pasting together dozens of short bits of string data.
Also, say that tommorrow he decides that the preamble part of the file name (the "Cscan" part) needs to be able to change. He would have a couple options with your code. First, he could take the preamble part out of the formatting string and use a string concatenator to append it back on after that date part is formatted--in which case he's sliding back into the old way of doing things. Second, he could assume that this is a neat idea but it only works in situations where there is exclusively dates involved and go back to building the string his old way because this is a "special case".
Or to make matters worse, what if for some reason, they decided that they wanted a text string inserted in the middle of the date-generated part. Now you're talking about perhaps a lot of extra code.
By contrast, the basic method I showed will work regardless of what kind of data he wants to add into the string, or the order that it has to appear. For example, to compensate for the change in preamble string would simply mean stretching the formatter up to create one new input terminal and replacing the "Cscan" in the formatting string with a "%s". The technique is more generalized so no additional code is required to support new "special cases". For example, this technique is also a great way of putting together long prompt strings because it makes it easy to visualize what the block of text will look like when all the blanks are filled in.
Mike...