From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 3 21:01:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA05515 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:01:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from quark.ChrisBowman.com (crbowman.erols.com [209.122.47.155]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA05507 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 21:00:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crb@ChrisBowman.com) Received: from fermion (fermion [10.0.1.2]) by quark.ChrisBowman.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA15582; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 00:13:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from crb@ChrisBowman.com) Message-Id: <199807040513.AAA15582@quark.ChrisBowman.com> X-Sender: crb@quark.ChrisBowman.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 23:58:05 -0400 To: Mike Smith From: "Christopher R. Bowman" Subject: Re: Variant Link implementation, continued Cc: Thomas David Rivers , drosih@rpi.edu, wjw@surf.IAE.nl, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199807040226.TAA07461@antipodes.cdrom.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:26 PM 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 '$' embedded in the middle of them...] > >In the existing sample implementation, you would have to have links >whose names comply explicitly with the syntax ...${}... 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... Does anybody else get the feeling we are reinventing plan9 here? I only know what little I remember of the few plan9 papers I read, but this does sorta seem like a solution to the problems they were having with different architectures, and seems like a sort of hack attempt at their directory/name space manipulations. -------- Christopher R. Bowman crb@ChrisBowman.com http://www.ChrisBowman.com/~crb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message