Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!zen!hoser.berkeley.edu!bryce From: bryce@hoser.berkeley.edu (Bryce Nesbitt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Putting devices in the filename space Message-ID: <3864@zen.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 02:56:35 EDT Article-I.D.: zen.3864 Posted: Mon Sep 21 02:56:35 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Sep-87 00:59:10 EDT References: <503@louie.udel.EDU> <1929@umd5.umd.edu> <775@sugar.UUCP> <156@splut.UUCP> <783@sugar.UUCP> Sender: news@zen.berkeley.edu Lines: 68 Keywords: Duplicate assigned names, ".", "::", "//////" Summary: Re: that grande propoal of yours. --- In summary, the file system definition needs: --- A way to specify the "current dir". "." or "::" or something better. When a disk with a duplicate name to a current device or assigned name is inserted, a requester with a string gadget should inform the user of the conflict, and force a new name to be selected before use of the disk is allowed. Moving up with "////" should top out at the root, without error. 1/2 :-) ------------------ read the rest for the reasoning... In article <783@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <156@splut.UUCP>, stu@splut.UUCP (Stewart Cobb) writes: >> And while we're at it, can we get rid of device names and go to a >> single filesystem? I have always hated this minor-but-annoying >> difference between Amiga and UNIX. > >Let's not, and say we did. > >[Why that suggestion got that response and description of a "problem"] >Solution: > Adopt UNIX-style path names within the device... > [much more deleted] Let's not and say we didn't. Taking a working file system and changing the namespace years after it's release does not sound like much of a win. Seriously, there are people who are used to the *Amiga* and not UNIX. Crazies who don't habitually type ".." or expect to go to the root with "/". >It's too easy to accidentally pop up a level. Only if you perform an incomplete UNIX <=> Amiga context switch. (Argh! ban the pun! ban the pun!) The functionality difference in this proposal is slight, and debatable at that. The asthetic difference is up to the user. I think "/" is a perfectly intuitive way of going up a directory. I *much* prefer this to "../". And going up multiple levels makes sense, "///". The only change I would make is to "top out" at the root, so "/////" would be the same if you are only two levels deep. (That is a preference... don't take that a serious suggestion.) I used MS-DOS and UNIX long before I heard "Amiga", so it's not my religious upbringing. --------- >Right now there is no satisfactory naming convention for the current directory. A-men! (To continue the religious slant :-). This would be a very sensible addition. The contenders are: "." Because UNIX uses it "::" Sort of makes sense. ":" is the root and it avoids adding *another* magic character that might need to be escaped. -- The other problem has to do with duplicate device/disk/assigned names. Pitty the poor artist who names a disk "FONTS:" I'd also separate assigned names and devices... but that's sticky internal design issue I'm not going to touch with a 25 foot telephone cord keyboard extension cable. |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, ENQ, SYN) {o O} . (") bryce@hoser.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!hoser!bryce U How can you go back if you have not yet gone forth?