[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd and Unix/Linux and Plan9 features

From: Pierre THIERRY
Subject: Re: Hurd and Unix/Linux and Plan9 features
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:33:52 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Scribit Ivan Shmakov dies 08/02/2007 hora 02:02:
>       Yes, shells oftenly do that.  Note, however, that almost every
>       other program isn't so smart:
> $ mkdir -p a/b c/d
> $ cd c/d
> c/d $ ln -s ../../a/b e
> c/d $ cd e
> c/d/e $ ls ../
> b
> c/d/e $ 
>       Would `ls' parse `..' by itself, `e' would have been shown
>       instead.
>       And again, I'm not about to /deny/ such ``lexical''
>       interpretation of `..', but it's not clear to me, which benefits
>       it would bring (or, which things it would break?)

The benefit seems obvious to me from your example: it would make
symlinks a less leaky abstraction. And I'm curious where the current
behaviour ls exhibits here is needed.

OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]