Re: logical paths (was: (no subject))

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hello!

Not an answer to the question, but it might be interesting nevertheless.


On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:48:11PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Kartik K. Agaram wrote:
> > Does POSIX require that coreutils commands use only physical path rather 
> > than pwd to resolve relative paths? When pwd contains symlinks and we try 
> > to operate upon relative paths that take us outside the symlink, the 
> > effect is often jarring and non-intuitive.
> 
> Symlinks violate some principles of least surprise.  Therefore it is
> no surprise that it is impossible to make all uses of symlinks
> unsurprising.

... at least when using the commonly used implementation / interpretation
of `..'.

<http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.html>,
<http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.pdf>,
<http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.ps> describes another one:
``Lexical File Names in Plan 9 --- or --- Getting Dot-Dot Right by Rob
Pike''.


Regards,
 Thomas

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature