On 28 May 2010, at 12:59, erik quanstrom wrote:
On 27 May 2010, at 21:16, Bakul Shah wrote:
If BSD had
implemented ".." correctly (i.e. walk back up one level in
the given path), symlinks would have been more useful and
less surprising.
This "correct" implementation of symlinks has never seemed right to
me. Linux / Bash used to do it the "wrong" way as recently as 2001 if
not more recently. I was much more comfortable with the "wrong" way,
with symlinks just being a portal to another place entirely, and I
wish I could pinpoint why. Having the path "faked" after following a
symlink just feels badly wrong, and I wish I could put a semantic
reason on it.
would you deconstruct bind/mount points as well?
recursively? that way lies vms/windows.
No, a bind's different... Maybe I'm being an idiot, but I'd like to
have a neat & tidy argument against symlinks, saying symlinks
introduce a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of issue.
Maybe the fact that no-one seems to like to keep the pwd in the kernel
is argument enough.
- erik
--
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- Alan Perlis
