Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!hao!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!usenet From: usenet@mcdchg.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.unix Subject: Re: Some thoughts on filenames - "" in particular Message-ID: <2738@mcdchg.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Dec-87 14:26:35 EST Article-I.D.: mcdchg.2738 Posted: Thu Dec 3 14:26:35 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 19:04:59 EST References: <3844@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz> <2597@mcdchg.UUCP> Sender: usenet@mcdchg.UUCP Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 31 Approved: usenet@mcdchg.UUCP Summary: I don't believe this discussion is even going on! In article <2597@mcdchg.UUCP>, dave@murphy.UUCP (Dave Cornutt) writes: > I know this is beating a dead horse, and probably everyone is sick of this > subject by now, and I promise to make this my last posting on this topic. Over in comp.sys.amiga we've been having a very similar discussion. You see, on the Amiga NULL is the *only* valid name for the current directory. Isn't that just peachy? Think about all the times you've wanted to refer to "./". Think about what you would do if you couldn't DO that? The Amiga has a special name for the root. Colon. :xyz means /xyz. :/xyz is illegal. /xyz means ../xyz. So, you can't just add "/name" and get stuff to work. Peachy. What am I saying? I'm saying the UNIX file naming convention is just fine. There's no reason to go hacking it up. It's useful to allow NULL to work as a synonym for ., because it makes for nice default behaviour. Don't wreck the file system making it "perfect". > Does this make any sense, or is it too much like VMS? This doesn't make any sense at all. It's too much like all sorts of brain damaged things. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.