Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!munnari!moncskermit!basser!uqcspe!kerry
From: kerry@uqcspe.OZ (Kerry Raymond)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links
Message-ID: <1563@uqcspe.OZ>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 01:54:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: uqcspe.1563
Posted: Fri Aug 28 01:54:42 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Aug-87 17:30:50 EDT
Reply-To: kerry@uqcspe.oz (Kerry Raymond)
Organization: Computer Science, Queensland Uni, Australia
Lines: 23

Time to compromise on this issue ?

The problem seems to boil down to this. Symbolic links do not preserve
the traditional tree structure of the Unix file system. So should ".."
continue to mean the `hard-link' parent (with a bit of fiddling to handle
mounting file systems) as it did before symbolic links ? Or should
".." mean the `soft-link' parent (go back the way you came) ?

Each method is more convenient than the other in certain situations,
and expert opinion (not mine !) suggests that both can be implemented.

The problem really seems to be the use of ".." for both meanings. 
Why not leave ".." as the directory entry pointing to the hard-link
parent (with fiddling at mount points) as it is, and call the soft-link
parent something else like ",," or "..." or something else that's quick
and easy to type and isn't a special symbol in the commonly used shells,
and isn't the sort of a name that a naive user will give to a file.

That way existing systems are compatible, and those people who wish
to alter their shells and kernels etc for soft-link-parent semantics
can do so. The only loss seems to be the special case of ",," being
introduced, which could slow down namei(). It shouldn't take very long
to re-train people to type ",," instead of ".."