Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ncr-sd!greg
From: greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg Noel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: arp CD command change???
Message-ID: <952@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 25 Feb 89 00:08:30 GMT
References: <8902131846.AA21527@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> <3434@sugar.uu.net> <932@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <731@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Lines: 43

In article <731@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes:
>How is ~dev better than dev:?  The / vs. .. argument is independent.

Consistancy.  Pathname components are separated by a slash.  Always.  Fully-
specified path names begin with a squiggle.  Always.  For programming, there
are fewer special cases or other corner cases that must be handled (such as
C:/foo being illegal -- or is it?).  Think of it as forest of filesystem
trees, where the top-level "directory" is the current list of indirections.

And for people who use csh, ksh, or later Bourne shells, the notation is
intuitive, as the same syntax is used there for indirection (although the
indirection is through the password file on the login name, of course).

And, indeed, the / v. .. issue (I hope we're not arguing!) is somewhat
orthogonal, although the consistancy principle implies that multiple
slashes should be equivalent, else they become another special case.  (But
I can see how the rules would work; I'd just find them a little more
complicated -- personal preference, again.)  I could live with either;
I'd rather not have to live with both -- my fingers keep forgetting on
which system I'm typing.....

>"The Hideous Name" - Rob Pike & P.J. Weinberger, AT&T Bell Labs.
>research!ucbvax@cmu-cs-pt.arpa:@CMU-ITC-LINUS:dave%CMU-ITC-LINUS@CMU-CS-PT
>	-Carnegie-Mellon University mailer

This is a mixed-mode mail address, not really relevant to the issue of
file naming conventions.  But it is a good example of how "simple"
interactions can trip you up.

>The problem with different syntax for differnt parts of a name is that
>standard tools don't work so well.  ....  the ucbvax:file syntax.  Okay,
>now whose shell can handle *:file?  ....

This is my point.  Separating the components with a slash buys consistancy.
If the top-level "directory" looks enough like a real directory to a program
it may not even need to be aware of the difference.

Passing comment: As soon as UUCP/USENET get translated into Aztec C (or
a portable subset), I'm planning to add this syntax to the transfer format.
It's actually what's documented for UUCP transfers, and it will keep our
HoneyDanBer UUCP from being too helpful and mangling the path names....
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo   Greg.Noel@SanDiego.NCR.COM  or  greg@ncr-sd