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>