🚀 go-pugleaf

doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
>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.
>
>	Doug
>-- 
>Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
>Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary

Good point- maybe I just never thought about that, since on my Amiga, I may
open another shell to type in commands, and usually never execute commands
from programs other than shells.  Links still don't work as very good aliases,
since the program to be linked must be written to take advantage of the
aliases.  Perhaps the solution to this particular problem would be to fix the
Execute() call so it actually starts up a shell which procedes to execute the
regular shell-startup file, and THEN runs the program.  Of course, I use an
editor with macros, and could care less that it doesn't like my aliases... :-)