[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:57:41PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > Don't be silly.
> I don't think it's silly. Slavish adherence to an system A's semantics
> when working on system B, just for the sake of adherence that _does_
> strike me as silly. Maybe that's not actually what's going on here,
> but that's what it looks like to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.
What, exactly, is gained by being gratuitously different from the
reference implementation of a concept?
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |