Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:43:43 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: ulf@z-code.ncd.com (Ulf Zimmermann) Cc: kaleb@x.org, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: dosfsck anyone? Message-ID: <199605072143.OAA24408@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9605070916.ZM13557@zask.z-code.com> from "Ulf Zimmermann" at May 7, 96 09:16:48 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ??? What does that mean, they're "artifacts of the search interface..." > > > > It's been years since I used MS-DOS enough to care about poking around > > in the file system with Norton Utilities, but as I recall "." and ".." > > are just like any other directory entry in a directory. > > . and .. are offical needed, it is used by MS-Dos to load quicker the actual > directory (. points to the first cluster of the diretory) or to go one > directory up again (.. points to the first cluster of the mother directory or > to 0 for roo directory) Windows95 IFS uses absolute paths for all FS lookups. So does NT. *ALL* FS lookups. Same goes for DOS 7.0 shells running INT 21 emulation for programs running in DOS "Command" on Win95. If you "cd .." you *don't* get a ".." at the IFSMgr_SetReqHook() call level. You get an absolute path with the ".." parsed back. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605072143.OAA24408>