Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.std.unix
Subject: Re: Case sensitive file names
Message-ID: <6050@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Oct-86 05:23:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.6050
Posted: Mon Oct 20 05:23:21 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Oct-86 21:41:31 EDT
References: <6002@ut-sally.UUCP> <5865@ut-sally.UUCP> <6018@ut-sally.UUCP>, <6029@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: IEEE P1003 Portable Operating System for Computer Environments Committee
Lines: 25
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu

From: pyramid!utzoo!henry (Henry Spencer)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 04:07:24 CDT

> If the filesystem were really transparent, the designers of /proc would
> not have had to encode process ID's in ASCII digits, they could have
> directly used the binary representation.

This is rather a red herring, since they wouldn't have done this even if
it had been trivially possible.  The ASCII representation is a whole lot
more useful for human beings, and isn't a significant nuisance to programs.
The extra code needed to do it isn't much (yes, I have read it).

> It's for these reasons that I feel that a conservative UNIX user should
> restrict themselves to certain "reasonable" filename conventions...

Agreed, but that is not the topic of the discussion.  Standards must address
requirements other than those of conservative human users.  It is a serious
mistake for a standard to attempt to legislate morality.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry



Volume-Number: Volume 7, Number 73