Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:32:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: mike@smith.net.au, rivers@dignus.com Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wjw@surf.IAE.nl Subject: Re: Variant Link implementation, continued Message-ID: <199807061332.JAA26291@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <199807040226.TAA07461@antipodes.cdrom.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...
>
Seems reasonable... [and, nope, I don't have file names like that,
fortunately :-)].
However, can someone with the POSIX spec in-hand speak to the POSIX
ramifications here? I mean, if we essentially "steal" this space,
does it break any (future) POSIX conformance?
- Just curious -
- Dave Rivers -
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?199807061332.JAA26291>