>I suspected it should be 'possible' to code it into ZFS. > >The reason it's been left to runat instead seems to be POSIX compliance >then?
It could still have used "//" pathnames (those have a POSIX reserved special meaning though that somewhat complicates pathname composition). E.g., a pathname of the form //@@file could be interpreted, I think, as the attributes of "file" in the current directory. Casper _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
