From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 6 06:29:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08527 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from elvis.vnet.net (elvis.vnet.net [166.82.1.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA08491 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:29:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rivers@dignus.com) Received: from dignus.com (ponds.vnet.net [166.82.177.48]) by elvis.vnet.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA28539; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:28:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lakes.dignus.com (lakes [10.0.0.3]) by dignus.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12641; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.dignus.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) id JAA26291; Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:32:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:32:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers Message-Id: <199807061332.JAA26291@lakes.dignus.com> To: mike@smith.net.au, rivers@dignus.com Subject: Re: Variant Link implementation, continued Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wjw@surf.IAE.nl In-Reply-To: <199807040226.TAA07461@antipodes.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > > > > Then I'll be thinking about haveing 2 rules of resolution: > > > @{....} > > > and ${....} > > > > > > > I don't mean to badger... but what if you, in an existing installation, > > already have symlinks that contain that text? Won't adding this > > facility break those existing links? > > > > [And, don't laugh, but I do have links and files that begin with '$', > > and, even worse, have '$' embedded in the middle of them...] > > In the existing sample implementation, you would have to have links > whose names comply explicitly with the syntax ...${}... where > is a valid tag in the variant link namespace. > > I think that this is sufficiently unlikely given that there have been > only two respondents that actually use '$' in names at all... > Seems reasonable... [and, nope, I don't have file names like that, fortunately :-)]. However, can someone with the POSIX spec in-hand speak to the POSIX ramifications here? I mean, if we essentially "steal" this space, does it break any (future) POSIX conformance? - Just curious - - Dave Rivers - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message