[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #57587] Should symlinks follow physical structure or logical structure?

[John W. Eaton]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #57587 (project octave):

So at least in --traditional mode, I assume we would want to use physical
names.

If we did allow following symbolic link names as an option, would there be a
problem for reliability of scripts?  Is that a problem for shells that have
this feature?

I think there may be other issues for Octave, like what is supposed to go in
the load-path?  The canonical physical name of the file or or the symbolic
link?  Should that depend on the setting for following symbolic links?

Since Octave borrows from readline and bash, I think we may have had some code
to track symbolic links in the past?

In any case, simply using the canonical physical directory name is far
simpler.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57587>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/