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