:<<On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:35:17 +0400, "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
:
:>> > ./foo/ .//
:>> > ./foo/bar .//bar
:>>
:>> No, because the ``resulting filename'' begins with a slash.
:
:> It seems resulting filename (pathname?) begins with "./" (not a slash).
:
:No, it doesn't. The ``resulting filename'' is "/" in the first case,
:and "/bar" in the second case. Both begin with a slash, and so are
:resolved relative to the root. There is no "./" involved anywhere in
:the process.
:
:The value of the symbolic link is not somehow inserted into the path
:being resolved. Once a symbolic link is encountered, pathname
:resolution *starts over* with the last directory searched in the old
:path used as the current working directory.
:
:-GAWollman
Right, and since "" is an illegal path name...
In anycase, I can't imagine that POSIX actually intended null symlinks
to act in any particular way, and obviously they are cause for a great
deal of confusion, and I don't know a single person who uses a null
symlink on purpose. So I say we simply disallow them, hence the patch.
If someone wants a symlink to point to / they can make it point to "/".
If someone wants a symlink to point to the current directory they can
make it point to ".".
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
