Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Symlinks and ..
Message-ID: <12408@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 20 Nov 89 19:51:46 GMT
References: <2755@munnari.oz.au> <12407@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <10168@alice.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <10168@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>Suppose, for instance, that a directory has subdirectories foo
>and bar and a file in foo says  #include "../foo/x.h" .  It is
>important to be certain that the x.h included is really the one
>in the foo subdirectory.

Agreed, but that's not an excuse to justify the way ".." behaves with
symbolic links. I would achieve the same result by using sensible -I
arguments to cpp (and no "../" in #include statements).

I've never understood why -I switches are not as popular as they should.
They're very useful.
    
Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com