Thus spake Greg A. Woods ("GAW> ") sometime Today...

GAW> Well I wouldn't call any *BSD a "traditional Unix" -- though of course
GAW> to anyone who's entered this world of unix more recently that will be a
GAW> somewhat confusing statement.  :-)

No, but they were _based on_ "traditional Unix".  4.3 was a bugfix and
performance enhancement release to 4.2 which was an improvement upon 4.1,
all of which fall under the 4.X umbrella which were based on System 7 (and
I remember something about 32/V, mostly in that if you had a valid 32/V
source license, you were entitled to receive BSD source code; otherwise
you had to purchase an AT&T source license at $100K because they stopped
selling 32/V source licenses at $1,500 a pop for what are obvious reasons,
but I digress...).

But, then, so, ultimately, were System {III,V}, and, to stand on my rapidly
deteriorating sesquidecade-plus-old cardboard soapbox, "By comparison to BSD,
they sucked wind, dong, and large square rocks through a rope between Perth
and Lisbon."

By the way, "What, exactly, was 32/V?"  Sorry to show my ignorance, but a
great much of what I *have* learned is through the process of being a
dinosaur by proxy.

GAW> >  (which were based on System 7, IIRC, at
GAW> > least in the beginning...).
GAW>
GAW> Early *BSD kernels were based on the Sixth Edition.  As I recall even
GAW> 3.9BSD still had a distinctly V6-feel in userland as well, though 4.1BSD
GAW> was definitely moving ahead of V7 in terms of features in both kernel
GAW> and userland.

I was only talking about 4.x BSD.  Never having seen 3BSD or 2BSD, I can
not claim to have a clue about them.

But I digress; if trailing slashes weren't allowed (and it's unclear from
your excerpt from sys/ufs_namei.c, since the context only references "/",
"/.", "" and "."), where in the world did we come to allow them?
Is that a result of the System * derivations?

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: Rock solid!