Subject: Re: Little prob with rm
To: John Nemeth <email@example.com>
From: Gary D. Duzan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/30/1994 09:31:48
In Message <199410300523.WAA07588@cue.bc.ca> ,
John Nemeth <email@example.com> wrote:
=>On Oct 30, 2:14am, Olaf Seibert wrote:
=>} Subject: Re: Little prob with rm
=>} For completeness, I would even argue for dir/file/.. being equivalent
=>} to just dir, which is (in unix notation) what AmigaDOS does. Except that
=>} under Unix a file has no ".." entry but under AmigaDOS the ParentDir()
=>} of a file is defined and useful.
=> I totally disagree with this. It is a major violation of the
=>rule of least astonishment, as it is a major change to UNIX filesystem
=>semantics. Under UNIX file, do not have directories, which I feel
=>is the way it should be.
Agreed. Besides, what if "file" was a symlink? Would you get "dir"
or the directory of the file the link was referencing?
Gary D. Duzan
Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts