Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 19:26:23 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, wjw@surf.IAE.nl, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Variant Link implementation, continued Message-ID: <199807040226.TAA07461@antipodes.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 1998 13:02:38 EDT." <199807031702.NAA19145@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >
> > 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 '$' embedded in the middle of them...]
In the existing sample implementation, you would have to have links
whose names comply explicitly with the syntax ...${<tag>}... where <tag>
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...
--
\\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith
\\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au
\\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org
\\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807040226.TAA07461>