Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!husc6!hao!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw
From: throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: symbolic links are a botch
Message-ID: <130@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jul-87 13:14:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: xyzzy.130
Posted: Mon Jul  6 13:14:11 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jul-87 06:05:18 EDT
References: <7879@brl-adm.ARPA> <2211@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP NC.
Lines: 22

> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse)
       [refering to pathname segment a/b, and relating the case where a
        is a symlink to that where b is an NFS or RFS filesystem.]
> It's not the symlinkness of a that matters but that of b.  I agree,
> it's a nice idea, but it sounds to me more like a feature of cd than of
> symlinks.  I've yet to hear a cohesive explanation of how symlinks
> would work that includes this feature as a side effect, that is, in a
> way that doesn't require special-casing cd.

Ah!  I was wondering just how to phrase my misgivings about comparing
these two cases and insisting that they work in the same way, and here
we have it.  In the one case, the directory is special.  In the other,
something that *points* to the directory is special.  It is not clear to
me that the two cases ought to act analogously.

Personally, I don't think symlinks are such a botch as folks make out.

--
"... and every so often he gave a great screeching display, rushing
about and slapping his sides."
                                --- from "Marooned in Real Time"
-- 
Wayne Throop      !mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw