Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!husc6!yale!bunker!zink
From: zink@bunker.UUCP (David Zink)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: symbolic links are a botch
Message-ID: <2211@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jun-87 13:07:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.2211
Posted: Fri Jun 19 13:07:05 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jun-87 03:29:26 EDT
References: <7879@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: zink@bunker.UUCP (David Zink)
Organization: Bunker Ramo an Olivetti Company, Shelton CT
Lines: 19
Keywords: HUH?

I'm So confused.  What's wrong about more than eight symbolic loops?
What's the difference between :
mkdir foo
ln -s `pwd` foo/foo
followed by reference to a pathname with infinite foo/'s in it as compared
with a pathname with infinite ../'s in it?
What's the point of outlawing some loops and not others? And what's more
important, why invalidate otherwise valid pathnames?
I'm serious, Isn't the maximum pathname length a firm enough limit on looping?
ELOOP is just a lie, after all, based on a stupid assumption.

Symbolic links have to break code with ..'s in it because half will mean up
and half will mean back; why change the meaning of .. to break one half
when we can just leave the meaning the same and still break half.
(or is it just the ATT crowd saying lets do the ATT botch that's not like the
UCB botch?)


David Zink.