Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: symbolic links are a botch
Message-ID: <2680@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Mon, 22-Jun-87 22:18:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.2680
Posted: Mon Jun 22 22:18:25 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jun-87 02:02:10 EDT
References: <7879@brl-adm.ARPA> <2211@bunker.UUCP> <2676@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <209@netxcom.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@ulysses (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 20

In article <209@netxcom.UUCP> beattie@netxcom.UUCP (Brian Beattie) writes:

>Would you care to discuss what is in your view the right way?

In this case, the "right way" would be one where "cd foo; cd .." does
what a naive user expects it to do (which is done by the way at mount
points and remote file system mount points anyway). To be really perfect,
though, it shouldn't break any current code. 

These two are conflicting goals and the question is whether we should
leave them broken the way they are (the argument here being compatibility
and such) or try to change their semantics.

I don't know the answer but I certainly like the idea of "cd a/b; cd .."
being equivalent to "cd a" whether "a" is a mount point, RFS mount point
or a symbolic link.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill

    {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell