Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 22:38:49 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, drosih@rpi.edu, wjw@surf.IAE.nl, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Variant Link implementation, continued Message-ID: <l03130302b1c3531465fe@[208.2.87.10]> In-Reply-To: <199807040226.TAA07461@antipodes.cdrom.com> References: 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
At 9:26 PM -0500 7/3/98, Mike Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > 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...
How much trouble is this syntax going to cause since it looks just
like shell parameters and will have to be escaped just the right number
of times to get it passed through the shells? Wouldn't it be easier if
we avoid a syntax that the shell will alter?
Richard Wackerbarth
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?l03130302b1c3531465fe>