🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19619@gryphon.COM> ddave@pnet02.gryphon.com (David Donley) writes:
>doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
>>	5) Links are *not* "a slow substitute for aliases", [...]
>>	   Off the cuff opinions about things you know nothing about
>>	   are no substitute for precise reasoning about design tradeoffs [...]

>Links are indeed "a slow substiture for aliases".  I know what links are. 
>Hard links on the same volume have no practical use at all except to be
>aliases, maybe for UN*X people using sh (which still can't do aliases) ...
>
>It reflects better on a poster if he doesn't make uninformed statments about
>other poster's abilities/knowledge/expierience...  Lighten up, buddy.

You're quite right about the tone of my final comment, it was inappropriate
and rude. My apologies for offending you.

I still disagree on the technical content, though.  You mention shells.
Ok, set up any kind of shell alias you like to make one directory entry
a synonym for another. Now try to use that alias from another program,
like an editor. The editor won't know about the alias.

In other words, links (never mind whether hard or soft, the same point
applies) are useful because they are universal...any program you use
will be aware of the link. This isn't true of any possible kind of
shell alias. (And in fact, "aliases" in the C shell apply only to
commands, at that. The only way to introduce a synonym even in the C shell
that will work as a parameter, not just as the command itself,
is via a C shell variable, e.g.  "set a=/usr/ucb/more; cp $a /tmp".
Compare this with "alias a /usr/ucb/more; cp a /tmp" which won't work,
and "ln [ -s ] /usr/ucb/more a; cp a /tmp" which will.)

No offense intended, but I still can't understand how someone can be
familiar with links and not see this basic difference between them and
aliases. This astonishment is what gave rise to my heated remark.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary