[[jason points out that Emacs file completion opens a dir
 and completes on that dir, so it won't complete on both /emul
 and non-/emul pathnames]]
hi,

I understand the difference between emul pathnames and a unionfs
mount.   I can see how maybe a unionfs mount might be preferable
for filename completion.

However, I'm not convinced that would affect processing
of symlinks within  /emul to outside /emul, or that we need 
a unionfs to make those work.  And I think they'd be very useful
for faking up a filesystem namespace for non-NetBSD programs
with hardcoded pathnames.   I think it's broken that such
symlinks _don't_ seem to work.  Is that the intended behaviour?

Also, use of  whiteouts in a unionfs /emul might be,  confusing to
non-NetBSD apps, too. (I don't know, I've never used one in anger.)