[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: logical paths
From: |
Kartik K. Agaram |
Subject: |
Re: logical paths |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:58:23 -0500 (CDT) |
..I'm afraid you may be biting off more than you can chew. Adding
logical behavior to all the coreutils.. ..just sounds like a huge task
to me, with minimal benefits.
<snip>
Chet Ramey's comments* on bug-bash are still pertinent - when worried
about logical vs. physical filename tab-completion in the shell, it is
easier to use the existing shell feature of 'set -o physical' to
temporarily force the shell to physical during the calculation of the
filenames to tab-complete, than it is to teach every utility the
difference between logical and physical.
Thanks for the warning. You're right, it's not that big a deal.
..it sounds invasive enough that you would need to assign copyright to
FSF if you ever expected it to be incorporated..
That's not a problem, of course.
Thanks,
Kartik
* http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.bash.bugs/9273
- (no subject), Kartik K. Agaram, 2006/09/09
- logical paths [was: (no subject)], Eric Blake, 2006/09/09
- logical paths (was: (no subject)), Bob Proulx, 2006/09/09
- Re: logical paths (was: (no subject)), Thomas Schwinge, 2006/09/09
- Re: logical paths, Kartik K. Agaram, 2006/09/09
- Re: logical paths, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/09
- Re: logical paths, Kartik K. Agaram, 2006/09/10
- Re: logical paths, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/10
- Re: logical paths, Kartik K. Agaram, 2006/09/10
- Re: logical paths, Eric Blake, 2006/09/11
- Re: logical paths,
Kartik K. Agaram <=